The US' Afghanistan Strategy
This is something I have been wanting to post about myself, but never got around to it. And now I don't think I need to, because Sarah hit the nail on the head with my thoughts about the whole situation (actually she did it way better than I would have been able to.)
I am really worried about how things are going to develop there, and I think that Afghanistan could easily develop into the quagmire that many feared Iraq would become.
I am really worried about how things are going to develop there, and I think that Afghanistan could easily develop into the quagmire that many feared Iraq would become.
posted by CaliValleyGirl at 2:22 PM
4 Comments:
Shucks, thanks.
I followed up with an email to AirForceWife today:
Whack-a-mole is about all Afghanistan can sustain. Nation building is a foolish endeavor there, but I'm afraid Obama will have to support it in order to Look Nice. Wars are no longer just killing expeditions.
I have been thinking more about this this morning, and I think what bothers me the most about this is...
In Iraq, we went: OK, we have to kill some bad guys so that we can set up this gov't and once it's set up, killing the bad guys now becomes your problem.
But there's no one to pass the Afgh problem off to down the road. So how long will it last?
In WWII, the Japanese were nucking futs. Kamikazes, etc. We had to nuke a second city because they didn't stop after the first! Holy hell. But finally the emperor cried uncle and signed a treaty.
There is no emperor figure in Afghanistan. How long will we have to keep killing bad guys? Indefinitely? There is no leader to step in and decide that enough is enough. There will be no treaty.
Den Beste may have been right that this could turn into a century-long war. That thought terrifies me.
Except it won't, because I don't think Obama will stomach it. He'll stay for a while and then pull everyone out, giving the bad guys time to regroup and reattack sometime down the line...
Ugh.
Gotta admit, I'm a little lost in this one. It seems you both are saying, or at least CVG is agreeing, that the best thing to do is to get out of Afghanistan now. But then you say Obama won't do that but won't last long cause he won't be able to stomach it and will eventually pull out, only causing the "bad guys" to regroup and attack us again.
So if we pull out now we won't get attacked again? Or am I reading this all wrong?
Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.
Foolish endeavors, to me, are invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and then having no plan for the post-invasion. But I think I'd get a disagreement on that one from you both :)
I can't speak for CVG, but I am not saying that we should get out of Afghanistan now. What I am saying is that I am not sure I want to do what it takes to win there. There is no exit strategy for Afghanistan at all, save "leave when everyone is dead." And that will take a long time and a lot of lives from everyone, something the US doesn't have the stomach for. Staying for a few years, losing many soldiers, and then quitting sounds like a terrible plan to me, but that's what I see happening.
I agree there has to be an exit plan because we can't do 8 more years of what we've been doing. I totally agree with you and President Obama when you say there must be a plan in place to bring a measure of success to the strategy.
As we all know, there was no exit plan for Iraq either, and just sending in a bunch of troops to patch up Afghanistan won't work. I can agree a little bit more with your follow up comment. Thanks for getting back.
Post a Comment
<< Home