[besson3c]

Why is it that after all these years we still cannot agree on what "winning" in Iraq and Afghanistan looks like, and just what, exactly, we hope to realistically accomplish by being there? We can debate about when we should pull out, what troop levels should be, responsibilities, etc., but doesn't the fact that we have an undefined mission sort of override the weight of these arguments?

When, do you think, we will learn that we cannot fight cultural wars with a culture we don't even fully understand with having troops on the ground there? I'm starting to think that the real power in the world is in peaceful alliances and non-interventionism. We have spent billions and billions of dollars on these wars while other countries have sat out and saved their money, and what do we have to show for it, exactly?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm starting to think that the real power in the world is in peaceful alliances and non-interventionism.

Yes, worked really well in the past

Exhibit A: Otto von Bismarck, master of alliances.

Result: World War I

Maybe you wanna brush up on your history lessons a bit.

-t

[besson3c]

When was the last time Canada or Switzerland was attacked or targeted?

Yes, they aren't superpowers, but when you weigh all the good our getting involved in other wars has done us vs. all of the bad, how do things measure up?

Why do you have to be confrontational all the time with dickish responses like your last? Sheesh....

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When was the last time Canada or Switzerland was attacked or targeted?

Yes, they aren't superpowers, but when you weigh all the good our getting involved in other wars has done us vs. all of the bad, how do things measure up?

They are NOT using alliances and treaties to keep themselves safe. Learn your facts.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do you have to be confrontational all the time with dickish responses like your last? Sheesh....

WTF ?

I give you FACTS and history, and you are being your typical dick, because you don't know jack.

Whatever, dude. Go poop yourself.

-t

[besson3c]

How would you characterize what Canada and Switzerland do then?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would you characterize what Canada and Switzerland do then?

Being passive and neutral ?

It's a big difference, you know.

-t

[OldManMac]

We're there because we don't want to look like the fools that we are, so we're pretending it's about making Iraq a democracy, and fighting a very small number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, under the silly pretense that it's going to make our country of 350 million safe from a few thousand whack jobs. Pathetic.

Why Should We Get Out of Afghanistan? Because Imperialism Is a Fool's Game | World | AlterNet

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Being passive and neutral ?

It's a big difference, you know.

-t

Yes it is, but don't you think it is a legitimate question to pose whether our being whatever you want to call what we do that is contrary to passive and neutral has been effective in comparison to passive and neutral?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes it is, but don't you think it is a legitimate question to pose whether our being whatever you want to call what we do that is contrary to passive and neutral has been effective in comparison to passive and neutral?

Well yeah, that's what I did, but you just dismissed my point right away w/o examining it.

"Peaceful alliances and non-interventionism" might not be that great of an idea, because it leads to ties and obligations that can easily draw you INTO war (see pre WWI Germany example).

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

We're there because we don't want to look like the fools that we are, so we're pretending it's about making Iraq a democracy, and fighting a very small number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, under the silly pretense that it's going to make our country of 350 million safe from a few thousand whack jobs. Pathetic.

Why Should We Get Out of Afghanistan? Because Imperialism Is a Fool's Game | World | AlterNet

I disagree. We're still in Iraq because we goobered up by stepping in there at the wrong time (if there was a right time ever), and since we actively removed the then-existing structure and order in the place, we're now responsible for helping someone establish new structure and order. Sort of an "oh gee, we just poked a great big hole in your dam, I guess we'd better do something to keep you from all being washed away while you figure out what kind of new dam you want to build" situation.

Afghanistan is different. We're there because the Soviets wanted to expand their empire at a time that they really didn't have much else to boast about. They invaded and then suffered for years with the mujaheddin kicking their hinies at about every turn. "Their Vietnam?" Not even a little-militarily we were victorious in almost every confrontation in Vietnam, but the Afghanis way outmatched the Soviets in the field, winning most battles. But what the Soviets left when they rolled home was a destroyed country with the only unifying theme around being "we are God's warriors," sewing the seeds for the Taliban to grab and hold power.

One problem with Islam in the last 600 years is that they have fallen away from being "the religion of learning" and their clerics don't focus on education of their people. Often they focus on NOT educating them, thus holding onto power through the ignorance of their people. This is a Taliban vice in spades-they are also the victim of this strategy, as their leaders have basically had to develop their own splinter interpretation of Islam to justify their actions and tenets.

So the Soviet's legacy in Afghanistan was a violently radical Islamic "cult" that controlled the country through brutality and felt that the entire West was against them. They were a great puppet for Osama, and they provided all the resources he needed to set up and build his terror network. What we did in invading there was displace the Taliban and thus the al Quaida physical base of support. What we failed to do was focus there so that we could obliterate the Taliban and then provide guidance to allow the Afghan people to fill that void with something more secular and (hopefully) not anti-Western.

Darn that old distractability, but that's what happened-George got (I think somewhat justly) ticked off at Saddam being a belligerent pain in the butt and decided (I think not justly) to kick his butt properly. This diverted enormous resources away from a real, established threat into a potential, possible threat and thus our efforts against the Taliban were derailed.

We got out of the literal imperialism business around the turn of the 20th century. Unless you consider diplomacy and alliance to be "imperialism," we haven't done much in the "acquire control" sort of area for over 100 years. Our last even potentially "imperialistic" action was the Spanish-American War, in which we liberated the Cubans and Filipinos (and others) from the exceptionally vicious control of the King of Spain.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, worked really well in the past

Exhibit A: Otto von Bismarck, master of alliances.

Result: World War I

Maybe you wanna brush up on your history lessons a bit.

-t

Lol, what?!

Did you just blame Bismarck for WWI?! Jebus help us.

That's ludicrous. I mean, sure, he royally pissed off France; of that there's no doubt. But you can blame his successors (i.e.Wilhelm II) for refusing to do the things Bismarck had done to build his empire. In his later years he even warned that there was going to be trouble if things continued the way they were.

Blaming Bismarck for WWI is like blaming Washington for the Civil War. I think it's time to go read some history yourself.

greg

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Lol, what?!

Did you just blame Bismarck for WWI?! Jebus help us.

That's ludicrous. I mean, sure, he royally pissed off France; of that there's no doubt. But you can blame his successors (i.e.Wilhelm II) for refusing to do the things Bismarck had done to build his empire. In his later years he even warned that there was going to be trouble if things continued the way they were.

Blaming Bismarck for WWI is like blaming Washington for the Civil War. I think it's time to go read some history yourself.

No, I did not. I didn't even write that.

The problem was that due to all the treaties and alliances, many more countries were "sucked" into WWI than would have been necessary. In a sense, the cross alliances made sure that if one country in Europe went to war, all others had to follow.

Causation was NOT my point here.

-t

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When was the last time Canada or Switzerland was attacked or targeted?

Yes, they aren't superpowers, but when you weigh all the good our getting involved in other wars has done us vs. all of the bad, how do things measure up?

Why do you have to be confrontational all the time with dickish responses like your last? Sheesh....

Canada:1985 Air India Flight 182

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, I did not. I didn't even write that.

The problem was that due to all the treaties and alliances, many more countries were "sucked" into WWI than would have been necessary. In a sense, the cross alliances made sure that if one country in Europe went to war, all others had to follow.

Causation was NOT my point here.

-t

Ahhhh alright, makes sense! Not sure I agree with attributing this warmongering as solely to "good diplomacy" – more like increasing globalization, even in that time - but I see what you're saying.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Canada:1985 Air India Flight 182

Failed Toronto terrorist group

[Cold Warrior]

The Afghanistan and Iraq strategies are taking shape — but it's not what you think.




The Iraq Model
It's clear at this point that there will be no real surge in Afghanistan in the same meaning that we've come to know for Iraq. In Iraq the surge worked not by crushing opponents with military might but by creating enough uncertainty to force all players into seriously doubting their achievable goals, and quieting the violence long enough for political accommodations to incubate.

With the US buckling down, the Shia realized they may not control the country, the Iranians could lose dominance and the Sunnis were now caught in a three-pronged war leading to decimation of their community : Shia, Al Qaeda and the US. AQ had turned against their Sunni hosts, attempting to radicalize them; the Shia death squads roamed freely throughout mixed sectarian regions; and now a recommitted US would no doubt focus its efforts on the Sunnis, who were really the core of the insurgency.

So the Sunnis made a deal to survive and allied with the US to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq. Iran and Muqtada Al Sadr (whose militia were driving the sectarian violence) understood that with a newly-freed hand, the US would turn its attention to dismantling their influence and infrastructure of violence. And for a time the US did, using its burgeoning forces to push out into communities, protect the population and purge large areas of Iranian influence and Jaysh Al Mahdi control.

They had thought the US would leave, but the surge disrupted that certainty, placing well-laid plans at risk. Iran's worst-case scenario could come true — a resurgent Iraq dominated by the Sunnis or a hostile United States. So the Iranians backed off a bit and they reached an understanding with the US that Iraq's future government would be Shia-dominated, but with some protections for the Sunnis.

Thus Iraq quieted down and the US, over two years later, is positioned to begin serious drawdowns. But drawdowns are not withdrawals.

Afghanistan
Afghanistan is different from Iraq: the politics aren't for Afghan consumption but for the US. Obama needs to try, and it needs to be with the general he picked and the approximate resources he is calling for. In the short-term, the strategy will meet its initial goals. The Taliban will decline the fight — just as they did in 2001 — and recede to the shadows, buying time on poppy, crime and a safe haven in the Pashtun heartlands in and across the borders. The US will buy off local tribes to keep the peace, ostensibly to fight the Taliban in their areas. But a weakened Taliban temporarily confined to the south is fine, in keeping with the mission to 'degrade' the Taliban. The real intent, though is much broader.

Why
Iraq and Afghanistan have siphoned American power away from containing Russia and having the reserves to threaten Iran. This wasn't a problem while Russia was chaotic and Iran marginalized. So Iran is emboldened and Russia has a freer hand to gain ground in its Near Abroad. A powerful Iran upsets the entire balance of power in the Middle East, and unchecked it could become a regional hegemon threatening US interests. With no clear lever and none coming from sanctions (the Russians won't play without significant concessions), Iran has the upper hand and the initiative. An open-ended Afghanistan commitment becomes an anchor dragging down US foreign policy.

To regain the initiative and leverage over all parties, the US needs a pivot, and that pivot is Iraq.

The Regional Pivot
Geographically, Iraq touches key regional players. This was the reason for the war in the first place: invade Iraq in order to frighten the Saudis and other Arab countries enough to go to war with Al Qaeda inside their borders and dismantle the global jihadist recruiting and financial networks. It worked but Rumsfeld's short-sightedness meant combat operations far longer than originally anticipated.

Iran fears a strong, independent Iraq made stronger and more capable by a relationship with the US. The US has given itself decent wiggle room with a 2011 full withdrawal date. In that time Iraq may be persuaded to negotiate a smaller but long-term relationship with the US, or it may be forced into that decision through Iran's own regional actions (Hezbollah, nukes, etc.). US grand strategy is in play here — to prevent the rise of regional hegemons capable of threatening US global interests, and to contain current ones to thwart their rise to global power status. Iraq is Iran's natural counterweight, and without it, Iran will become too powerful.

What we have is a unifying strategy that supports US grand strategy: exit Afghanistan to free force bandwidth and a dependence on Russia for supply routes; double-down in Iraq to establish a long-term Iranian counter designed to roll back and contain Iranian influence; and leverage the remaining military bandwidth as the traditional strategic reserves to box in Russian moves in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

A long-winded answer to the OP, but an answer rooted in geopolitics and US necessity. And now you also know the logic behind my profile Location for the past two weeks.

[Dork.]

No discussion of "what we are doing in Iraq" should go on without mentioning PNAC, who was pushing for regime change in Iraq since 1997. Their member list read like a Bush Administration roster (including Cheney and Rumsfeld). Their basic principle was that, as the world's only remaining superpower, The US had an obligation to lead decisively and unilaterally in the 21st century, in order to encourage the growth of political freedom and international order.

With regards to Iraq, they viewed Saddam Hussein's government as a direct supporter of terrorism, and that its continued existence threatened US (and global) interests. They endorsed going in and deposing Iraq by force, simply because we had the will to do so, and as the world's last superpower who would stop us? Immediately after September 11th, they immediately started beating the war drums to go into Iraq, because they all assumed he was responsible. But even when we learned he wasn't responsible, they still pressed on, because they took it as given that Saddam supported terrorism, so we could never succeed at eliminating these terrorist groups until Iraq was dealt with.

Of course, PNAC didn't directly send us to war in Iraq, they were just a foreign-policy think-tank. But their members occupied high places in the Bush Administration and its Defense Department, so it is no surprise that the group's principles drove Bush's foreign policy.

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would you characterize what Canada and Switzerland do then?

WTF? Comparing those two countries is utter foolishness. I'm surprised Besson, I thought you were in the know-how.

Buddy, coffins come our way every week (and counting numbers should not be the issue).

Apologize or hide in your freakin' ignorant hole.

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Being passive and neutral ?

It's a big difference, you know.

-t

You guys are simply not in the loop (ignorant fawks). Per ratio we're losing as many soldiers as you are.

A little respect please..

[dzp111]

As far as why the war? Let us remember Hitler. Do we want a country or two or three to be governed by Islamic extremists? Yeah! Power!

Ouch.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

You guys are simply not in the loop (ignorant fawks). Per ratio we're losing as many soldiers as you are.

A little respect please..

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

WTF? Comparing those two countries is utter foolishness. I'm surprised Besson, I thought you were in the know-how.

Buddy, coffins come our way every week (and counting numbers should not be the issue).

Apologize or hide in your freakin' ignorant hole.

I'm well aware of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but on the whole is it not safe to say that Canada is a fairly neutral country?

[dzp111]

Apology accepted. A-hole.


: )

[besson3c]

I'm not just a hole, I'm two holes!

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm well aware of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but on the whole is it not safe to say that Canada is a fairly neutral country?

No, it's not "neutral", it simply follows suit where wrong should be right. We do what we can.

Peace.

[besson3c]

Cold Warrior,

Thank you for thoughtful post.

Why do you feel that the US is so compelled to play these sorts of chess games? Any of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country over there is no real threat to us no matter how big and ugly their radical elements grow, if it weren't for them controlling oil. However, we are also one of their biggest customers of oil and enablers.

When I say "no real threat", I acknowledge the possibility of another 9/11 or something like that, but compare the costs of another 9/11 to the costs of what we are doing now both in terms of lives and resource allocation. I think perhaps a part of this is the feeling that American has that we simply want to prevent another 9/11 no matter what the cost simply because we do not want to be bested. I'm all for preventing another 9/11 if we can, but I can't see how we can really be effective against such a decentralized enemy using our military. Wouldn't it be more effective to coerce governments and play political chess games rather than playing this neverending game of whack-a-mole with our military?

Just thinking outloud...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

No, it's not "neutral", it simply follows suit where wrong should be right. We do what we can.

Peace.

I think we are mostly mincing words here. You're right though, Canada is not neutral the way that Switzerland is, but it is also not into nation building and policing the way that the US, Canada seems to focus primarily on diplomatic peace keeping type missions on the whole, agreed?

[dzp111]

Dare I say to all of you, we're not fighting an ignominious battle, we're simply fighting for not only our protection but for human justice.

Is that worth a soldier's life?

It used to be, for millennial.

[besson3c]

How are we fighting for our protection?

[dzp111]

[QUOTE=Canada seems to focus primarily on diplomatic peace keeping type missions on the whole, agreed?[/QUOTE]

What the hell is wrong with diplomatic peace? Pray tell..

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do you feel that the US is so compelled to play these sorts of chess games? Any of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country over there is no real threat to us no matter how big and ugly their radical elements grow, if it weren't for them controlling oil. However, we are also one of their biggest customers of oil and enablers.

When I say "no real threat", I acknowledge the possibility of another 9/11 or something like that, but compare the costs of another 9/11 to the costs of what we are doing now both in terms of lives and resource allocation.

Not only could any/all of these countries themselves stage another major attack on the US, they could and will if not prevented from doing so export terror through supporting and encouraging groups internally and in the region. Unless these three nations, and others in the region, are at least willing to accept that the West is the West and the US is what it is, they will certainly act against us far more nastily than just jacking up the price of oil.

By official policy? Not publicly, certainly-not even the Taliban did that. But they will surely attack us one way or another because they have publicly announced that they believe all of the West, and the US particularly are "the devil." You can't get more "real threat" than hypering a huge number of poorly literate "true believers" into an anti-West frenzy and aiming them, dynamite-vests in hand, at us.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

What the hell is wrong with diplomatic peace? Pray tell..

I'm not sure I understand your question nor how you think I'm disagreeing with this?

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You can't get more "real threat" than hypering a huge number of poorly literate "true believers" into an anti-West frenzy and aiming them, dynamite-vests in hand, at us.

Will any amount of military force stop this? My opinion is "No way in hell." (Short of turning the sand into a giant sheet of glass.)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not sure I understand your question nor how you think I'm disagreeing with this?

Besson, you're not doing anything wrong. dzp111 just seems to be rambling. Maybe he's drunk.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Not only could any/all of these countries themselves stage another major attack on the US, they could and will if not prevented from doing so export terror through supporting and encouraging groups internally and in the region. Unless these three nations, and others in the region, are at least willing to accept that the West is the West and the US is what it is, they will certainly act against us far more nastily than just jacking up the price of oil.

By official policy? Not publicly, certainly-not even the Taliban did that. But they will surely attack us one way or another because they have publicly announced that they believe all of the West, and the US particularly are "the devil." You can't get more "real threat" than hypering a huge number of poorly literate "true believers" into an anti-West frenzy and aiming them, dynamite-vests in hand, at us.

So why don't we devote the same resources to addressing our domestic security to limit the number of dynamite vesters, rather than putting troops in other countries which some might even argue inflame and produce even more dynamite vesters?

[besson3c]

My ideas are obviously full of holes, but am I the only one that has thought that what we are doing is all wrong and backwards?

[dzp111]

Can we agree to disagree Besson? I'd like that.

Simply said, give us Canadian troops a high five,

You and I would have no quarrels -there are too many as it is.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So why don't we devote the same resources to addressing our domestic security to limit the number of dynamite vesters, rather than putting troops in other countries which some might even argue inflame and produce even more dynamite vesters?

It is, believe it or not, more efficient to prevent a regime from allowing/supporting such movements than it would be to secure our borders much more than they are now. Stopping one bad guy could be impossible, yet such a bad guy could cost hundreds of lives on US soil. Plus, airtight security would cause all commerce to grind to a halt, and quickly bankrupt the country.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

Will any amount of military force stop this? My opinion is "No way in hell." (Short of turning the sand into a giant sheet of glass.)

Not by force, but by opposing the totalitarian, extremist groups and movements with force as needed, we can give more mainstream, more inclusive groups a chance to organize and attempt to lead their countries.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

Can we agree to disagree Besson? I'd like that.

Simply said, give us Canadian troops a high five,

You and I would have no quarrels -there are too many as it is.

Sure, but I don't think we actually disagree

I'm actually Canadian myself, although I haven't lived in Canada for nearly 10 years now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Not by force, but by opposing the totalitarian, extremist groups and movements with force as needed, we can give more mainstream, more inclusive groups a chance to organize and attempt to lead their countries.

Okay, well how do we do that if these extremists groups are completely decentralized? Isn't this, in a way, a war against ideas and tactics?

[dzp111]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, well how do we do that if these extremists groups are completely decentralized? Isn't this, in a way, a war against ideas and tactics?

Shall we dare call this a global chess game?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that after all these years we still cannot agree on what "winning" in Iraq and Afghanistan looks like, and just what, exactly, we hope to realistically accomplish by being there?

we can agree on what we're trying to accomplish. When Afgan and Iraq understand that they are going to trade the way we want them to under our conditions without so many of them rebelling against us and trying to preserve their lame culture, then we are finished with our mission; when they adapt to service us.

When, do you think, we will learn that we cannot fight cultural wars with a culture we don't even fully understand.

speak for yourself. The mission isn't to understand culture it's to shape it and create it. There are people in the government whos job is to be experts with the culture. But they are ignored. because their real purpose is for show.

I'm starting to think that the real power in the world is in peaceful alliances and non-interventionism. We have spent billions and billions of dollars on these wars while other countries have sat out and saved their money, and what do we have to show for it, exactly?

peace would require not trading with them....and not supporting their dictators who they hate. We have cheap gas to show for it.

So be happy that your cities were designed large and spread out, around a culture of driving everywhere. Now you're at the point where you don't have a choice. You need that cheap gas...

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Not only could any/all of these countries themselves stage another major attack on the US, they could and will if not prevented from doing so export terror through supporting and encouraging groups internally and in the region. Unless these three nations, and others in the region, are at least willing to accept that the West is the West and the US is what it is, they will certainly act against us far more nastily than just jacking up the price of oil.

By official policy? Not publicly, certainly-not even the Taliban did that. But they will surely attack us one way or another because they have publicly announced that they believe all of the West, and the US particularly are "the devil." You can't get more "real threat" than hypering a huge number of poorly literate "true believers" into an anti-West frenzy and aiming them, dynamite-vests in hand, at us.

And there is where the fundamental differences between your beliefs and mine lie. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were a small splinter group of nut jobs, not part of some national effort, or even part of a large cohesive group. The vast majority of the people in Afghanistan are illiterate, or semi-literate at best, and their daily concerns include struggling to get by. They hardly have the means and expertise to mount a large scale attack on the U. S. The Taliban are a relatively small number, who's primary influence is through loud posturing and weapons, which, now that I think about it, is what commands our own military forces. Are there people there who would like to blow up the U. S.? Of course. If we remain vigilant these people are now match for us, on our own soil.

We're spending untold billions overseas, in the ruse of protecting ourselves, when only 5% of the enormous volume of goods coming into this country, via untold thousands of shipping containers, in wide open ports, are ever inspected. Our borders are ridiculously porous, as we continue to lay of police officers, and send our troops overseas. Our national infrastructure is rapidly becoming a joke, as it is both crumbling, and completely unprotected.

Thanks to the incessantly repeated and shrill warnings of people like George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, the propaganda that they never stopped delivering, via the outsized control they had, appears to have taken hold of a fair number of overly paranoid people. These people operate on emotion, and not reason. If they were to operate on reason, they'd realize that they're going to die from an innumerable variety of causes other than terrorism. For some reason having to do with emotion, hearing about 3000 people die a horrible death, via a heinous act, causes people to suspend their logical functioning, and whips them into a frenzy about protecting themselves, when in fact you're more likely to die from an infection than you are from a terrorist.

We don't need to worry about terrorists killing us; we're doing a great job of that all on our own.

[ghporter]

If being actively supported by the ruling junta of a nation doesn't count as being "part of a national effort." then what does? bin Laden had much of the Afghan infrastructure at his disposal, and the active cooperation of the government in running his camps-including the issuing of visas to whomever bin Laden wanted.

[OldManMac]

There isn't a cohesive Afghan government; that's part of my point. Afghanistan is a tribal area, with warlords, who control family groupings, having effective control over most of their own regions. As I've already stated, the U. S. doesn't know how to deal with these types of people, as they don't know who to trust. This isn't a simple battlefield, where we have a clearly identified enemy on the other side, and we know who to eliminate. I fail to comprehend how those who are always so willing to offer up our troops don't comprehend the situation they're getting them into. We're already operating at a 12:1 ratio in Afghanistan of troops; making it 20:1 isn't going to change the underlying dynamics of the region. We don't belong there; let these people solve their own problems, and let us spend our dwindling resources solving our own internal problems (which are enormous, and getting worse), while being vigilant against attack from outsiders.

[ghporter]

You're right about the tribal character of Afghanistan, but my point was that the Taliban actually controlled the country and took an active part in supporting attacks on the US-that means that they are responsible for those attacks as much as al Quaida. That they were controlling tribal regions throughout their time in power indicates that they were controlling the country.

Westerners have a history of not understanding tribal relations. Countries like Afghanistan are "nations" only in a broad sense by our definitions, and it is this disconnect that causes us the most difficulty. On the other hand, my use of "Westerners" is a very broad and expansive generalization; many people in the State Department DO understand these nuances and such people are involved in our actions. Many people in DoD are also both aware of these things and working on plans and policy to make effective use of that knowledge. I hope you are not suggesting that important decisions about our activities in Afghanistan are being made by people without proper support and guidance by experts in these areas.

[Chongo]

Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc are all "nations" created by the League of Nation/UN after the defeat of the Ottoman Turks. The middle east is going through what Europe has since the 1700's Every tribe want's there own country. The Kurds want Kurdistan. But in order for Kurdistan to be created, Part of Turkey and Iraq would have to be split off.

[besson3c]

And where does Al Queda fit into all of this? Our original Afghan mission was to go after Al Queda... Now?

[besson3c]

I ask again because I really want to know: am I abnormal for questioning our tactics and just what we are trying to accomplish, and thinking that perhaps we are going about things the wrong way? Have any of you thought along these lines?