Afghanistan Cut 'N' Run

[Slargos]

As significant as 99% of the other thread starts, I'd say.

I will admit I was a bit surprised by this. Or, well, I guess that's the wrong word. They obviously weren't going to stay forever. I doubt the Afghans are ready to fend for themselves though.

Vietnam all over again.

I disagree, in Vietnam the country last the appetite for the fight, but here the fight has just become pointless. There aren't reasonable ways to eliminate every taliban, or make a country like Afghanistan a western style democracy. This is as good as we can reasonably expect to do. If the Taliban starts a comeback, we won't send helicopters to evacuate Kabul--we will send ground units beat the Taliban back.

6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

In 1971 a quarter of the US population supported the war.

In 2011 a third does.

A difference, but not a huge one.

Can the President afford (financially but perhaps more importantly politically) a new Surge should the Taliban redouble their efforts rather than negotiate once the withdrawal is under way?

[alfred russel]

6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

In 1971 a quarter of the US population supported the war.

In 2011 a third does.

A difference, but not a huge one.

Can the President afford (financially but perhaps more importantly politically) a new Surge should the Taliban redouble their efforts rather than negotiate once the withdrawal is under way?

The polls don't give close to the full story. The situation in Vietnam was toxic in this country and the dominant political event. Afghanistan is way down the list of things people are worried about. There really isn't much of an anti Afghanistan movement to speak of. But if the Taliban make a comeback, I suspect people will start caring in a big way, and be pro intervention. Getting rid of the Taliban was extremely popular, chasing down a few guys in the hills is kind of meh.

[jimmy olsen]

Yeah Timmy, that 68 number seems to be all troops, not just US.  Notice in the same sentence he talks about surging 33,000.  You can't surge 33,000, withdraw 33,000, then end up with twice the troops you started with.

We currently have 100,000 troops in country. Obama started increasing troop strength immediately. Only the last 33k that were sent out after December 2009 were the surge.

[jimmy olsen]

Washington Post

Obama's plan, announced Wednesday, calls for bringing 33,000 U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by next summer. After those forces leave, there will still be nearly 70,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

CBS News

The president's plan calls for withdrawing 10,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. He said all 33,000 of the surge forces deployed starting at the end of 2009, would be out by next summer. That would still leave 68,000 American military personnel in country.

LA Times

About 23,000 troops would come home in 2012, leaving about 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to continue fighting the Taliban and help the Afghan government build its security forces.

[Razgovory]

I'm unsure what exactly the NATO can actually do in Afghanistan.  Building a nation there is like trying to sculpt a statue from jello.  Would another 10 years of occupation actually improve the situation?

[Admiral Yi]

Nice documentation Timmy.

[grumbler]

Nobody does.  But I'm getting so tired of supporting assholes like Karzai.

As long as the Taliban understands that we will glass them if they harbor al Qaeda, they can have that shitty country.

I've almost moved to this position myself.  The US is going to have to be ready to take in a lot of refugees, because we encouraged a lot of moderates to stick out their necks, and we owe it to them to provide an alternative to getting them chopped, but it it clear that there is no responsible, moderate government possible in Afghanistan. 

[Neil]

He and his kleptomaniac inner circle have a disaster for the country and process of recovery.

Yeah, but any Afghan you put in charge will plunder the state, and giving the country a colonial administration is politically unacceptable.

Karzai might be the best option out there.

[garbon]

6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

In 1971 a quarter of the US population supported the war.

In 2011 a third does.

A difference, but not a huge one.

Can the President afford (financially but perhaps more importantly politically) a new Surge should the Taliban redouble their efforts rather than negotiate once the withdrawal is under way?

The polls don't give close to the full story. The situation in Vietnam was toxic in this country and the dominant political event. Afghanistan is way down the list of things people are worried about. There really isn't much of an anti Afghanistan movement to speak of. But if the Taliban make a comeback, I suspect people will start caring in a big way, and be pro intervention. Getting rid of the Taliban was extremely popular, chasing down a few guys in the hills is kind of meh.

Indeed.

[derspiess]

He and his kleptomaniac inner circle have a disaster for the country and process of recovery.

Yeah, but any Afghan you put in charge will plunder the state, and giving the country a colonial administration is politically unacceptable.

Karzai might be the best option out there.

I'm okay with him staying, just not on our dime.  Iran seems to be willing to bankroll him and his cronies, so let's let them pick up the whole tab.

[Ideologue]

As significant as 99% of the other thread starts, I'd say.

I will admit I was a bit surprised by this. Or, well, I guess that's the wrong word. They obviously weren't going to stay forever. I doubt the Afghans are ready to fend for themselves though.

Vietnam all over again.

I disagree, in Vietnam the country last the appetite for the fight, but here the fight has just become pointless. There aren't reasonable ways to eliminate every taliban, or make a country like Afghanistan a western style democracy. This is as good as we can reasonably expect to do. If the Taliban starts a comeback, we won't send helicopters to evacuate Kabul--we will send ground units beat the Taliban back.

The Soviets had a pretty good idea of how to do it.

[Razgovory]

Nobody does.  But I'm getting so tired of supporting assholes like Karzai.

As long as the Taliban understands that we will glass them if they harbor al Qaeda, they can have that shitty country.

I've almost moved to this position myself.  The US is going to have to be ready to take in a lot of refugees, because we encouraged a lot of moderates to stick out their necks, and we owe it to them to provide an alternative to getting them chopped, but it it clear that there is no responsible, moderate government possible in Afghanistan.

What keeps you from adopting this position?

[Jacob]

He and his kleptomaniac inner circle have a disaster for the country and process of recovery.

Recovery implies that things used to be better. I'm not sure they were.

[CountDeMoney]

He and his kleptomaniac inner circle have a disaster for the country and process of recovery.

That's the way they do business.  If suitcases full of cash is the way to get things done, that's the way it is.

Remember, these are the people who play polo with a dead goat, and most have no last names.  Some cultures can only grasp trinkets and baubles.

[dps]

He and his kleptomaniac inner circle have a disaster for the country and process of recovery.

Recovery implies that things used to be better. I'm not sure they were.

Prior to1973, they were.  But that's a lot of history to roll back, and given the demographics, the vast majority of their population doesn't remember that period.