| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Afghanistan War Tribute - Is this Third World Toilet Worth These Brave Souls? |
| 2009-11-03 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #14 If Afghanistan is ungovernable, how do we win and get out? GolfBravoUSMC, IMHO you've got that back to front. you win by getting out and then managing Afghan from the outside. The book of counter insurgency as well as the the book of counter terrorism can be thrown into the rubbish bin. There is only one book that matters and that is the history book. As Phil_B noted, there are regional players playing the "Great Game" here and we are squandering our resources that are going to be needed for the bigger threat, resurgent Islamism. The history books indicate the way to deal with Afghanistan is to divide and conquer. Back the fighting tribal group that aligns with our interest with resources, including UAV targeting of their opponents and fight the funding of their opponents outside of the country. |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-11-03 23:28 |
| #13 There's far more at stake in that rotten country and the rest of the world (including here) than being publicly addressed. Lacking leadership, that country will become what it may no matter how many die. That stated, the answer is a definitive 'no'. History will likely judge David Gaubatz and his son patriots of the new cold war, and the fallen and veterans of its victory 'heroes'. How history will judge this President, however, truly depend on 'who writes it'. That, my friends, is the core of the fight. |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2009-11-03 22:42 |
| #12 Bush should have declared victory and withdrawn 4 or 5 years ago. Instead he got suckered into nation-building. Now it's going to be like getting out of quicksand. We don't even have any North Vietnamese to negotiate with. Obama will just get a lot of kids killed because he can't make a decision. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-11-03 20:58 |
| #11 The embedded (false) assumption in the whole Afghanistan debate is it would revert to a pre-9/11 state without US and western intervention. The world has changed over the last 8 years and China and India are both asserting themselves regionally. We should leave it up to the regional players to sort out Afghanistan. They have strategic interests there and the West, especially the USA, Canada and Australia, don't. My concern is that a war the West need to fight is on the horizon and when it arrives the will to fight it will have been squandered in Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: Phil_B 2009-11-03 20:55 |
| #10 without Wonderboy giving clear commander's intent U.S. support will erode quick. Are we there to pacify or fix a culture that we don't have the time or resources to fix. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-11-03 20:40 |
| #9 I dunno. That's for you to decide. And - for you to convince me that your decision is the right one. This "is this toilet bowl worth our brave souls' is mealy-mouthed. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-11-03 20:28 |
| #8 I fought in a war 40 years ago that is all too familiar to this one. Goofy rules of engagement, fighting for a tie, corrupt ally, ambivalent local population, enemy with sanctuaries, weak US political leadership, shrinking public support, etc etc. I ask the question: If Afghanistan is ungovernable, how do we win and get out? Will this country be willing to stay in Afghanistan for a generation? How long before the US population says enough is enough and demands their leaders pull the plug? Will these brave souls be wasted as we were in Vietnam? |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2009-11-03 19:57 |
| #7 We're there because of these souls and to prevent another repeat by the perps and their sponsors and abettors. Those who serve and have served know the risks and are willing volunteers to do the job. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-11-03 19:02 |
| #6 If we think in terms of our survival, the focus is clear. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-11-03 18:58 |
| #5 #3: Old Patriot is right. We're not there to save them. We're there to save our future. Then scorch the damn place, and the tribal areas of Pakistan too. |
| Posted by: Don Vito Uleash3305 2009-11-03 18:52 |
| #4 False question. And the one the left will use to replace the questions we should be asking about the war in Afghanistan. The Afghan War needs to be redefined somewhat to give the left more political room to operate in. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-11-03 17:29 |
| #3 Old Patriot is right. We're not there to save them. We're there to save our future. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-11-03 16:17 |
| #2 No, but neither were the 3000 people that died on 9/11/01. We're not there to "rescue" Afghanistan, but to try to ensure another 9/11 won't happen. That's a much harder job, but it's the only thing that will ensure such an event won't happen again. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-11-03 15:21 |
| #1 No. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2009-11-03 15:07 |