""So it just repeats the usual affirmations that "we must...." and "we will...." while avoiding the far more important issue of whether we *should*.""

Thanks for that Walt. I've been harping on exactly that theme for the last couple of years on the AfPak channel & Best Defense. I'd like to hear more people pointing this out to those

One way I've asked the question is, "What does 'winning' in Afghanistan even mean?" - what do we get out of it? The more you look at it, the answer is basically, 'nothing'. Government will be no less corrupt, Pakistan will have no less influence, border-crossing fighters will still run amok in some provinces... We don't currently do anything of any particular value to alter the longer-term future of the country; rather, we're simply pouring money and manpower into an irreconcilable situation. I find some military commentators who wax on about needing to tinker with COIN vs CT tactics to be completely oblivious to the larger issue of *why*? It is simply assumed that we have to keep chugging away in afghanistan until someone says "we won" - criteria for 'victory' having devolved from Osama's head on a stick to--> Improved Poll #s for the ANP & ANSF. "The New Afghan Military! Now only *80%* illiterate! And only 40% deserters per month!" Pat yourself on the back and wish them well in their future role extorting money from drug lords, running toll-collections on the New Roads we helped build, and conveniently helping rig any future elections.

It's pieces like this here...

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/09/the_calculations_of_coin_dont_forget_the_other_surge_of_afghans

...that have been driving me up the wall. We seriously have way too many smart people engaged in the extremely stupid game of justifying our actions in Afghanistan via meaningless metrics.

More telling are pieces like this, via Michael Yon:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com.php5-4.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/surobi-sentinel-oct-2010.htm

(From an Army NCO conducting 'hearts and minds' work in afghanistan)

""...He (the Afghan teacher) told me point-blank the people of Afghanistan have no clue why we came to their country. The Taliban spreads through intimidation and flat out lies the reason for the US and Coalition Forces coming to Afghanistan. It’s to spread Christianity and to rape and steal. He stated the literacy rate is so low; nearly everyone who cannot read or write relies on word-of-mouth or various radio stations for their news.

....who are the average Afghans going to believe? If you think I’m kidding, I had one man last week say he was told the US invaded Afghanistan to rape their women and steal the country’s rubies.""

This is the status of this war after 9 YEARS. You can see why I think Poll #s or ANSF stats are meaningless in the broader context.

I was hoping Obama would get us out of this mess (and I am a crazy conservative).

They need to go covert, like Israel. Targeted assassinations and clandestine operation are the way to go. The more this war against Radical Islam goes on T.V. the more people it makes angry.

it is the dangerous for afganistan and tribal pakistan.I hope that Obama should be the gud for terrorism in afganistan and pakistan.

Dogs in Heat

delete all these commercials--they are distracting and inappropriate!

This is a good subject to talk about. Sometimes I fav stuff like this on Redit. I don’t think this would be the best to submit though. I’ll look around and find another article that may work.
http://www.articlespeak.com/south-beach-java-reviews

Bacon writes: "Besides the political reasons for extending the US empire there are considerable natural resources (petroleum, gas, minerals and water) in these countries, and a lot of money to be made."

Sure, resources are in play....but pray tell us where has the US made any money here? A good business plan is predicated on getting a healthy ROI. By all accounts, we have invested Trillions in these grand designs that you describe. What has been our return so far? Or, what do you expect it to be in the future? It must be definitely greater than what we have so far plunked down -- right? Is that gonna happen?

Let me just give one simple example that should illustrate that you do not need to invade countries to secure access to resources you need. Take China for instance -- its resource needs are not much different from our own and, if the current trajectory of their growth continues, they will outstrip ours. How many countries have they invaded or destabilized? Instead, they are investing heavily in infrastructure of those countries that have the raw materials the Chinese think they would need. Indians are doing much the same. One can rant about China and India turning a blind eye on the despotic and abusive rulers of these countries (e.g., Sudan, Burma, etc.) and wax eloquence on the reprehensibility of that.....but most would agree it beats invading and destroying those countries by a mile or more.

After 9 years, Russians withdrew from Afghanistan but it was too late to recover from bleeding wounds, and it disintegrated.

Now we enter into 10th year of US occupation of afghanistan, how long it will take US to understand the facts.

Widening war into Pakistan is not the solution..... From waziristan agency to now other agencies. than to quetta, than to other cities? where it will stop?

The more blood shed in Afghanistan and pakistan, the more hatred against US , the more cry for revenge, the more militancy, the more insurgency breading grounds.

It may take historians a couple of decades to conclude that the US was/is broken- that the US has simply completely, utterly lost its way- but the rest of the world has been of that opinion for quite a few years now.

It's not polite to say so to Americans, but the rest of the world thinks you're completely nuts, and much as we've gone along to this point, much as the Germans are doing, we can't pretend any longer.

It's like having rich old uncle Wilbert at the party every year dancing in his underpants. It's very embarrassing but everyone pretends not to notice. Eventually, though, someone gets on the phone and calls the men in white coats.

That's where we're at right now. Dialing.

The column touches upon the core question thusly: "whether the costs of disengagement would be all that significant; it simply assumes that getting out would lead to catastrophe."

So what would happen if the West were to get out?

The pessimists like to cite history (Afghanistan's never-been-pacified and all that), so here's a pop history quiz for you all: What happened to the Soviet installed Najibullah govt in Kabul after the Soviet's withdrew with their tails between their legs in 1989? At the time, everyone expected Najib to fall almost immediately. In fact, even though it faced widespread open civil war (not just the nasty insurgency we have now), and Najib made Karzai look like a genuine populist by comparison -- Najib's govt held on until the USSR itself collapsed and thus stopped sending aid.
See for example the summary, in particular footnote 4, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_%281989-1992%29
By the time the West pulls out its major grd tp committment in a few years at most, the Kabul govt -- whatever one may think of it -- will command some 150K tps, more of various sorts of police, and the continued support and aid of the intl community. What effect do you think the Taliban, HiG and mish-mash of others are going to have in the face of all that?