[Pyuvjzwf]

Some commentators have been suggesting that there will never be a better time than now to declare mission accomplished in Afghanistan and get out of dodge. It does seem to me after ten years and billions of dollars trying to "nation build," the Afghans are people that can't be helped or don't want to be helped. What do you think? Should we walk?

[tigoCeree]

It depends on how likely islamic fascists would be to take it over and resume using it to launch attacks on americans. I would not say that is is a stable country right now, but there is some validity to the argument that it never will be, so the NATO might as well accept it and go home.

[nonDosearrany]

It depends on how likely islamic fascists would be to take it over and resume using it to launch attacks on americans. I would not say that is is a stable country right now, but there is some validity to the argument that it never will be, so the NATO might as well accept it and go home.

I have an idea: the military goes home, and the federal government actually starts securing borders, ports, and coast lines. As a Constitutionalist, don't you agree that these are core federal government responsibilities?

[seervezex]

The longer we stay the more we will be viewed as occupiers which ultimately means we will always be fighting.

The death of Bin Laden would seem to be a good breakpoint. Since Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, are our enemy, and since the Taliban for the most part sees that allying itself with al qaeda only brought themselves harm, I'd think we could broker a deal: Don't harbor or work with al qaeda, and we won't invade again.

[Uttephabeta]

I struggle with this one. If we pull out, Afghanistan is a failed state, the people suffer, and history risks repeating. If we stay, we certainly have no guarantees that we'll be able to create a stable and safe state in an area that certainly doesn't seem conducive to one.

It seems that the approach is all wrong. Perhaps the question we should really be asking right now is - should Afghanistan really even be one country?

[escolubtessen]

Of course it is "accomplished"! US/NATO military is now needed in other countries that await ... err... the coming of democracy! Afghanistan will now be left in the hands of war-lords with enough ammunition to start sh*t in the neighbouring former Soviet "stans" just under Russia's belly. I think few "covert teams" of "specialists" would be enough to keep the fire going...

Syria awaits you! Then, perhaps, Turkey and Africa... Pakistan would be for afters...

[sFs4aOok]

I dont think its up to us. All we can do is help them be free to choose. The direct concern is whether we are more or less safe occupying Afghanistan.

[Loxaeed]

Of course it is "accomplished"! US/NATO military is now needed in other countries that await ... err... the coming of democracy! Afghanistan will now be left in the hands of war-lords with enough ammunition to start sh*t in the neighbouring former Soviet "stans" just under Russia's belly. I think few "covert teams" of "specialists" would be enough to keep the fire going...

Syria awaits you! Then, perhaps, Turkey and Africa... Pakistan would be for afters...

Maybe you guys shouldn't have destabilized their government in the 70's? Blowback is a bitch ain't it?

[Glamyclitlemi]

This really is a tough subject but I had to vote that it is time to go. That worry for a failed state falling back into the wrong hands of course comes to mind but at the same time we are spending quite a bit (in lives and dollars) on a conflict with questionable results the further we go. I am starting to think we would be better off dealing with all the various factions of people in Afghanistan (who can't seem to agree anyway on a true national level active controlling government) through intelligence operations over active military occupation. I am just no sure the long term goals will be achieved in Afghanistan now that we know what is going on, and who is living reasonably well, across the ridge in Pakistan. Just seems to be far more going on over there against us than for us. Again, tough subject I am not 100% sure on.

[lollypopz]

This really is a tough subject but I had to vote that it is time to go. That worry for a failed state falling back into the wrong hands of course comes to mind but at the same time we are spending quite a bit (in lives and dollars) on a conflict with questionable results the further we go. I am starting to think we would be better off dealing with all the various factions of people in Afghanistan (who can't seem to agree anyway on a true national level active controlling government) through intelligence operations over active military occupation. I am just no sure the long term goals will be achieved in Afghanistan now that we know what is going on, and who is living reasonably well, across the ridge in Pakistan. Just seems to be far more going on over there against us than for us. Again, tough subject I am not 100% sure on.

But how many lives are we saving?

[77rexulceme]

I vote a conditional yes. I'm thinking that the Taliban has been sufficiently weakened to the point where NATO and Afghan forces can handle the bulk of the necessary operations, but we'll have to see what happens this spring/summer. The Taliban has announced that fightin' season has commenced.

What we should avoid is mission creep that turns this into an extension of the drug war.

[Uhmavano]

I vote a conditional yes. I'm thinking that the Taliban has been sufficiently weakened to the point where NATO and Afghan forces can handle the bulk of the necessary operations, but we'll have to see what happens this spring/summer. The Taliban has announced that fightin' season has commenced.

What we should avoid is mission creep that turns this into an extension of the drug war.

NATO is us though. Now if the UN cared about Afghanistan and was willing to help out, that would be a different story.

[gkihueonhjh]

But how many lives are we saving?

The problem is you nor I really know the answer to that. The both of us can only speculate as to what will happen if we pull out of Afghanistan or what would have happened if we pulled out at some other time frame. Odds are it will be a real mess but at the same time what are we really doing over there at this point? The real truth is people are being killed over there and have been for a long time, there is little to debate on that front. And take your pick on countries in that region of the world in some level of conflict where lives are lost, with respect to your question. There also seems to be a real absent national government over there with areas of Afghanistan up for debate on who is in control. I am not saying our military is to blame at all, all respect is due to them. Rather our government calling the shots on how Afghanistan is faught is more to blame in relation to how we press Afghanistan to step up and control, protect, etc. their country. What I always seem to focus on is the further we go in this conflict it is unsure what impact we have made in a country that is clearly divided on whom should be in charge. I would favor an intelligence based series of operations in Afghanistan to support our interests over this never ending military occupation for a government over there that seems unwilling, unable, or both to control whatever we take for them.

[Acciblyfluila]

NATO is us though. Now if the UN cared about Afghanistan and was willing to help out, that would be a different story.

To clarify, I meant non-US NATO forces. The primary reason they are there is to fight the drug war. We should not get our forces involved in that. And as far as the UN mission, they just got their asses handed to them recently.

[I9dydJrX]

Nope. We will just have to return five to ten years down the road.

We have to end the cycle.

[EvaQWmrm]

I fear we will occupy Afganistan for decades to come, as we cut safety nets for our own folks.

Time to get out of the M.E. and let em kill one another, til they get tired of it.

[hygtfrdes]

Maybe you guys shouldn't have destabilized their government in the 70's? Blowback is a bitch ain't it?

Darling, tell us just WHAT EVENTS proceeded the USSR intervention?
WHAT countries made sure Taliban came to power?

[SiM7W2zi]

To clarify, I meant non-US NATO forces. The primary reason they are there is to fight the drug war.

Funny thing is the drugs production actually florished with the coming of US/NATO; on the other hand if to think just how much money CIA makes out of drug trade...

[slimfifa]

Darling, tell us just WHAT EVENTS proceeded the USSR intervention?
WHAT countries made sure Taliban came to power?

That's right. Let it allllll out.




Poor Russia/USSR was completely defenseless, and has always been the victim. It bears no responsibility for anything that has happened. Ever.

[alfredtaniypnx]

Poor Russia/USSR was completely defenseless, and has always been the victim. It bears no responsibility for anything that has happened. Ever.

Are you denying that US/international community financed, trained and armed Afghan war lords (including OBL) that later formed what is known now as Taliban?

Are you denying the US went into Afghanistan to take control of the pipeline and natural resources, even installed former Halliburton consultant as "president"; but since you failed miserably and China quietly started reaping the benefits you began talks with the war lords/Taliban -- that same "Taliban" you are supposedly fighting?

Yes, your mission in Afghanistan is accomplished: the country has been destibilised for decades to come in order to slow down China and start sh*t on Russia's borders -- the best result you can achieve considering the change in geopolitical circumstances: US dollar (the very foundation of your economy) is in deadly decline and China moved into Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
Your next task now is to mess up as many countries that are ditching the dollars as you can, which means you need your military elswhere.