You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
28% of Americans Say Afghan War Unwinnable
2011-04-03
[Tolo News] Around 28 percent of Americans think the ongoing war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, according to the latest joint poll by the Washington Post and ABC News.

The poll finds Afghans are more optimistic about their future than Americans. Fifty nine percent of Afghans think their country is moving in the right direction.

Americans view Afghanistan's Caped President Hamid Maybe I'll join the Taliban Karzai
... A former Baltimore restaurateur, now 12th and current President of Afghanistan, displacing the legitimate president Rabbani in December 2004. He was installed as the dominant political figure after the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001 in a vain attempt to put a Pashtun face on the successor state to the Taliban. After the 2004 presidential election, he was declared president regardless of what the actual vote count was. He won a second, even more dubious, five-year-term after the 2009 presidential election. His grip on reality has been slipping steadily since around 2007, probably from heavy drug use...
as illegitimate, incompetent and corrupt.

The reasons that have increased Afghans' optimism about their country's future would probably be the way they compare the past with the present.

There has been a significant increase in the number of children attending schools in Afghanistan. Now more than 8 million children, a third of them girls, attend schools compared to one million in 2001.

Afghans' access to communication has also increased with half of the population using mobile phone services.

Experts criticise the government over lacking proper approaches and said international community would also lose trust if the trend continues so.

"The government itself is responsible. Afghan government hasn't been able to introduce itself to the international community," Amrullah Aman, an Afghan political analyst, said.

The poll says Afghans are mostly troubled by mounting security challenges.
Posted by:Fred

#14  It's a dilemma, remoteman, and I don't know the right mix -- I have neither the knowledge or the training to think deeply about such things. But I was rereading something lotp posted a few years ago about why we've got boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. You'll remember it -- you were in that conversation. Her post is #22.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-04-03 22:54  

#13  TW, none of what you've written is justification for continuing our current level of involvement in Afghanistan. We are not going to be able to change that country in any meaningful way. We would be better off isolating both countries, and their populations in any way possible. Hopefully they will focus on killing one another.
Posted by: remoteman   2011-04-03 21:14  

#12  How about the old policy of containment?

It's too late for containment, Anguper Hupomosing9418. The terror groups have branches in Britain, the U.S., Bangladesh, and connections in India, at least. They have plotted attacks using members brought in from around the world, eg. Mumbai and Denmark. And we we aren't anywhere near ready to go to war with Pakistan, which thinks itself secure behind its nuclear bombs.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-04-03 19:33  

#11  "If we destroyed all the ISI-sponsored terror training camps, there would be little left of Pakistan."

What's the downside, AH?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2011-04-03 19:27  

#10  If we destroyed all the ISI-sponsored terror training camps, there would be little left of Pakistan. The whole country is a terror training camp. How about the old policy of containment?
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-04-03 18:08  

#9  1) Pakistan was unified under a single government that controlled every inch of the country. Likely a brutalitarian regime. With its territory expanded to cover Pushtun southern Afghanistan.

They tried. That's why they sent the Taliban into Afghanistan in the '90s. If they were capable of ruling their own territory, they would be doing it. Just as, if they were capable of repudiating the turn toward religious mania they made under General Zia al-Haq after losing Bangladesh in 1970, they would have done that, instead of becoming a country where a governor is murdered to general acclaim for suggesting that a Christian be released from prison because she was innocent of blasphemy. The Pakistani army is as mad as the rest, it seems to me, despite the officers drinking whiskey at their clubs.

In other words, this is pure b.s. fantasy.


Pakistan has over 40,000 madrassahs, and the public school system might as well be -- the primary level education teaches arithmetic, Pakistan history, and civics as well as reading and religious studies. The country is further down the path than Saudi Arabia, in my opinion. If we destroyed all the ISI-sponsored terror training camps, that might be a start.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-04-03 15:10  

#8  Or, we could just nuke them from space. Wait, did I say that out loud?
Posted by: Jefferson   2011-04-03 12:16  

#7  So I'm thinking that China invades Pakistan, and sets up a puppet regime, whose dictates are enforced viciously by the Chinese army.

I'd agree except China is too busy bleeding the U.S. with the consent of the ruling class in Washington.
Posted by: JohnQC   2011-04-03 11:22  

#6  The headline is wrong. The question isn't about whether the "war" is winnable it's about whether it's worth it to civilize the Afghans. I am surprised the number is so low.
Posted by: regular joe   2011-04-03 09:44  

#5  Relative peace could come to Afghanistan if two things took place.

1) Pakistan was unified under a single government that controlled every inch of the country. Likely a brutalitarian regime. With its territory expanded to cover Pushtun southern Afghanistan.

2) The area that is now known as Northern Afghanistan becomes the new Afghanistan, and kicks all the Pushtun up there into southern Afghanistan, now part of Pakistan.

This would make Pakistan into a nation of 190 million people. The brutalitarian regime would forcibly convert all Pakistanis either to a single religion, or force them to be secular.

So I'm thinking that China invades Pakistan, and sets up a puppet regime, whose dictates are enforced viciously by the Chinese army.

In other words, this is pure b.s. fantasy.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-04-03 09:24  

#4  Termites. You still end up having the exterminator return for inspections and checks because the environment just breeds them. Like having to deal with enviro-winnies, you're not allowed to use the big stuff that will do the job once and for all because of the impact upon baby chickens, fluffy bunnies and unicorns.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-04-03 08:39  

#3  Pull out of both; let's keep some intelligence assets in both, but pull out people and $$$$.

I'd agree with this IF....
A) we had intelligence assets that were competent and reliable; and
B) the As & Ps would stay in the damn box.

If everyone that went to Afghan had stayed there we would not have had the problems we have. The dark age nutters, though, come and go to wreak havoc elsewhere.
Posted by: AlanC   2011-04-03 08:27  

#2  I am more and more convinced that the Afghan war is not only unwinnable, but Pak land is a basket case. Pull out of both; let's keep some intelligence assets in both, but pull out people and $$$$.

Bolster India and rebuild Japan to help contain China.
Posted by: sam3rd   2011-04-03 07:54  

#1  Just 28%?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-04-03 06:09  

00:00