http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ntil-2024.html

The longer this administration is in office, the more it becomes like the previous one. This means that we will have a force in Afghanistan from 2001-2024. Ridiculous.

 

Yup politics showing its true colors. Heres the new boss same as the old boss.

 

He could, of course, do like that vaunted Republican President, Richard Nixon did, and simply abandon a war he did not start.

Hey, it got us out, brought the POWs home, and I, for one was happy to support that action. Maybe, I'd feel the same way here. So what if the Afghans fell back into Taliban control? They're not worth much to us anyway are they?

Pakistan's a bit worrisome though....

- Jack

 

I think I grasp the idea you are presenting, but I have to ask the dumb question.

Is it going to be any different than a planned stages exit ?

I was all for going after the source of the problem at hand, but same as Russia found out, it is a game of wack-a-mole.
I don't think the exit was thought out too well, prior to entry, considering we knew what Russia went through.

It is not quite as bad, but the war of attrition ( similar to what you got sucked into ) is not a war that can be won when the opposition does not care one way or the other, they seem to have the same pride of state ( instead of country ) like Japan did.

I don't think there is every going to be this nirvana that is envisioned ( even by some in the country ) when the rule of the land seems to be still enforce.

Pakistan I agree completely, I think they are giving us lip service, and stabbing us in the back.

 

Steve - you understand EXACTLY what I was saying! No, once we leave, however we leave, the place will fall apart again (or go back to its "natural state", depending on how you look at it).

And, in the case of Vietnam, things have turned out pretty good for them there once everything quieted down. They have commerce with the world and don't seem at all oppressed.

I doubt Afghanistan will be so fortunate, since they won't really be taken over by a "stable government". Still, part of me feels we're responsible for trying to set things right. It's hard to totally justify the "Nixon model".

But, a more important reason for maintaining a presence there, in my view, is Pakistan. They have nukes and a weak government. At least if we're close, we might have better intelligence about developing situations. And, if we're close, we might be able to react quickly in some way to head off what could be a disaster of world wide proportions.

- Jack

 

If we were out of the M.E., India would have no trouble handling the Pakistanis.

Now that they have nukes, everything has changed there.

 

Wish I could be as sure of that as you seem to be. A nuclear exchange between them would have drastic consequences on the rest of the world, even if no bombs fell outside their borders.

- Jack

 

Re-read my post. "Everything has changed" since the Pakistanis have nukes. Remember, Pakistan used to part of India.

 

Yeah, like who would answer all of the computer questions?

 

So, you're saying India would NOT be able to handle Pakistan? (I'll certainly agree to that!) But, Frank, why did you say, "...India would have no trouble handling the Pakistanis." if we were out of the M.E.?

Are you trying to imply our presence there is somehow strengthening a largely Islamic nation's power against one that is largely Hindu? That makes no sense at all.

- Jack

 

My point was that if we had never interfered in the M.E at all, India would have no trouble handling the Pakistanis. Now we would literally have to destabilize Pakistan and take control of their nukes. Then hand over Pakistan to India.

I think this is the main reason Obama wants to keep us there until 2024. Time will tell. Either way, more American blood will be spilled there and money spent.

 

The point I've bolded seems a rather far-fetched conclusion. It implies Pakistan would not have wanted to develop nukes so they would be no threat to India, or, that India would have launched a preemptive strike against Pakistan to keep them from developing a nuclear capability. Neither seems a credible line of reasoning.

- Jack

 

Of course it "seems" far fetched now with hindsight. The "point" is that IF we had never interfered, India (with their superior position geopolitically and economically) would easily have been able to dispose of any threat from Pakistan before it had time to materialize.

Sorry if this doesn't "seem" credible to you, Jack. Like I said, whack-a-mole.

 

Natural State is the best way to describe it.
That is the system that has been running for 3,000 + years, what makes anyone think 20+ years is going to change it.

They have very little ( comparatively ) in terms of local production, aside from drugs, where Vietnam has talent that has been passed down for generations, that China and the likes were able to take advantage of.

Thought the US went into the country to rid the world of those in charge ( best descriptor ) of what happened 9/11.
Placing a new government in charge somehow got added to the list of things to do.
Who cares if a local tribe that sided with Taliban or the Al-Qaeda is part of the new government. It is not as if the new head of the country is without fault.
Parts of the Pakistan govt have been siding with the Taliban for a long time.

The lip service needs to stop from Pakistan , nukes or no nukes. This crap of paying them off to help and allow forward bases there, then finding out they are helping who we are after is just BS. Stop the money, see what they do ( or could do without it ).

 

Couldn't agree with you more Steve. I would add that Vietnam was "blessed" (if I can use that term) with a stable government, once we left - so it WAS a totally different animal.

But, sigh, I suppose I need to respond to Frank's somewhat ill-formed assertion too. Frank, you're positing that India would have had a credible intelligence gathering network that could have learned Pakistan was developing nukes and then, you're saying they would have efficiently acted to stop it.

Well, where was that vaunted intelligence service in the attack in Mumbai?

And, aren't you forgetting the corruption, faulty leadership, and constant security breaches in both countries?

Sorry, Frank, events just don't seem to support what you think (or imagine).

I feel there is every likelihood Pakistan would now have nuclear capability with or without our presence in the Mid-East.

Frank, I did not change the subject (your pointless "whack a mole" comment). Why have you jumped to that conclusion? YOU started all this with your original post. Notice I did not disagree with any of it. I did, however feel it was appropriate to point out reasons why we MIGHT want to keep a presence there. I'm perfectly happy to see any of them shown to be false. I already agree with SSCULLY about the true "nature" of Afghanistan, so to try to form a stable government there seems a pipe dream. But then, YOU brought up some sort of nonsense that none of this would have happened if we hadn't gone after Bin Laden (our reason for invading in the first place). You're "crying over spilt milk". We cannot undue the past, so, try to learn how to get on with life. (And quit side-stepping the issue.)

I think you should have been a politician.

- Jack