General McCrystal is all gung ho for escalating the war in Afghanistan. We don't need or want another Vietnam!

Right leave it to the Taliban so they can let AQ train again. I like it.

AQ training can happen anywhere. 9/11 training happened in the USA, for example.

Do you really want our military young men and women to die so Afghanistan can become a new Bangladesh, and Al Qaeda moves on? How can you expect to win future elections if you keep killing off your own party's voters?

AQ can do SOME training anywhere. Other forms of training require a stable place where the local government either doesn't mind, or is actively supportive -- in short the environment that once existed under Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

Oh well, it doesn't matter, by the time Obama gets around to committing any troops its going to be too late (he should really read some books on military history -- the longer you give your enemy to prepare, the more troops you will need).

Of course, we can pull out entirely -- and then twiddle our thumbs and wait for the next 9/11.

...the longer you give your enemy to prepare, the more troops you will need

Please. How long did Bush let things drift along in Afghanistan? Does seven years sound about right? What's your hurry? We're looking at a situation where we could be there for another decade! Damn straight we need to think about this long and hard to minimize our losses.

trapdoor:

Of course, we can pull out entirely -- and then twiddle our thumbs and wait for the next 9/11.

You can wait. Even twiddle your thumbs. The rest of us will be trying to prevent the next attack with increased security measures and not antagonizing the rest of the world. Join us! ;- )

Which new security measures? We're already rubbing up against our 4th Amendment protection against illegal searches with the security measures we have.'

I think it is you who has recommended (in another thread) bringing home our troops and locking down our borders more thoroughly. While I agree with the concept of additional border security, if "not antagonizing the rest of the world" means "isolationism" (and I can't see how it means anything else), then I'm not on board. The best defense is a good offense.

No, no, you don't understand-- all we have to do is not antagonize the rest of the world, really. It's our fault they attacked us, remember?

thewolf05827:

all we have to do is not antagonize the rest of the world

half-right. Read my post for the other half of the equation. If you don't like tight national security, just label it "isolationism" and reject it, like trapdoor and advocate for more invasions and longer wars.

Yeah, that'll keep us Americans safe. Except for soldiers. Contract workers. CIA agents. DEA agents. Journalists. Red Cross staff. Oops. But perhaps the lives of some Americans are expendable and disposable. Gotta protect those fat white asses, stateside.

Sorry Trap, but your argument is grossly flawed, and events since 9/11 bear this out. As for AQ training for 9/11, most of, if not all, plotting, planning, and training was done outside of Afghanistan: in Germany, Pakistan, and even in the U.S. AQ can and will plot, plan, and train just about anywhere they damn well please. That is the unfortunate truth. The Taliban was well entrenched in Afghanistan through the 90s and into the Bush administration. Nobody among the industrialized nations, including the U.S. really gave a damn about the plight of the Afghanis under the Taliban, until we were attacked on 9/11.

Obama's measured deliberation about our future in Afghanistan is exactly what should be done, rather than the previous administration’s rush into invading Iraq over phantom WMDs and getting control of the world's second largest oil reserve, and ensuing clusterfuck that we got. And what did we get out of invading Iraq: Zero!

Giving troops longer to prepare my ass. Why don't you read some books on the history of nations that have tried to occupy Afghanistan. The English and the Russians among others could tell you a thing or two. This isn't conventional warfare where a country builds up their conventional armies and weapons and then attacks. This is a region where tribal factions have ruled and controlled their respective territories for centuries. We could go in now with 50K troops and not get any more control over anything outside of Kabul than we have now. When the U.S. went in at the end of 2001, the Taliban were driven out of a few key towns and strongholds by a swift concerted military effort. The Bush administration placed Karzai in power and left. The Taliban just moved over the border to Pakistan and immediately started a systematic re-taking of their territory in Afghanistan. A so-called Iraqi style surge will never work in Afghanistan. Too much territory, too many warlords and tribes, and a general populous that doesn't really want us there. Not because they don't like us necessarily, but because they know that the U.S. or any other powerful nation can never guarantee any semblance of security for them.

You are flat ass wrong on this one, and so is Dick Cheney. But then Cheney has a history of being wrong.

While Obama has been practicing "measured deliberation," October has been the deadliest month for U.S. Soldiers since the war began. So it is time to either commit additional troops, or withdraw entirelly.

You're spot on about the history of Afghanistan, its a historical fact -- but does past performance stand as a prediction of future results? I'm not so sure. In any case, Pakistan is not much of an ally or it wouldn't have let the Taliban/Al Qaeda operate within its boundaries.

I think we might as well get used to being at war to one degree or another for the next few decades. Why do I think this? Because of another historical fact -- we've endured 40 years of attacks from Muslim extremists and have mounted no real resistance any time other than the last six years. Because the Muslim extremists refer to us as "the Great Satan" and I think it is unlikely that religious fanatics are going to negotiate an honest peace treaty with Satan. I think this state of warfare is apt to exist whether we stay in Afghanistan or pull out.

As I am deployable and work as an Army civilians, I really don't want us there -- but I don't think withdrawing is a good strategy, either. Even in an assymetric warfare environment, the enemy needs stable and safe places to train, plan and strategize. Pulling out merely gives them that -- it doesn't mean we're at peace -- and as 9/11 showed, they have no compunction about attacking us, nor do they lack the ability to do so, no matter what we do at our borders.

Does anyone know how and who is supplying them with food stuffs? If you all are talking decades that’s a lot of supplies over time.

Is it too hard for the US troops to cut them off with such supplies?

Do they grow their own crops to survive ?

Putting a robotic crop duster with a defoliant would eventually starve them out. There are defoliants that make the ground sterile up to 2 to 5 years.

???

I agree with trapdoor. Screw the "measured deliberation" and withdraw our troops. The Afghans are (gasp!) grown adults and can be trusted to handle their own affairs as they see fit.

Still what sort of looniness drives the logic of those who think Afghanistan is the only place on the entire globe that Al Qaeda can do training exercises? Why would you want to kill hundreds of Americans and thousands of Afghanis to accomplish nothing? I think y'all should just admit the truth. You like war and don't really feel alive if we are not in one.

Stop with the fake platitudes..."oh I hate war...", "war is a last resort", "I don't want to go, but if I do, I'll serve reluctantly but bravely.." etc. blah blah blah. Who do you expect to fool with such obviously untrue statements? We all know the difference between love and hate and hate is plainly not what you feel when it comes to war. We belong to the same species, you can't trick us, for gosh sakes. We can see your inner feelings even if you can't. (hint- avoid=hate; embrace=love)

Have you checked troop levels in Afghanistan since Obama was sworn in? He already sent another 20,000. The request for 40,000 would require some planning, don't you think? Where will they come from? Can we move troops from Iraq more quickly than the status of forces agreement signed by Bush? Would you suggest we move troops from South Korea?

Bsharp: You've misinterpreted what I wrote (probably intentionally). I said that withdrawing the troops was a bad strategy.

The Afghans ARE grown adults -- but they demonstrably CANNOT be trusted to handle their own affairs. We had a good long time of watching them handle their own affairs under the Taliban, and they provided a safe-having and training ground for terrorists. If they had handled their own affairs, we wouldn't have had Osama bin Laden hiding there.

Afghanistan isn't the "only place on the globe" at least, not while there's Syria, but from a terrorist's point of view it offers some real advantages. It is remote. It's mountains and caves provide good places to hide from observation. Sans U.S. intervention it provided a cooperative government -- and all those things together are hard to find anywhere else in the world.

Smear me as a warmonger, but there is no security measure we can do while at home that will disrupt the planning and execution of terrorist attacks. The only way such attacks can be interdicted is where the terrorists live and operate. That includes Afghanistan.