Why Are We In Afghanistan?
Tweet
I think that’s the central question of the Obama administration’s surge of troops to the region and what it all means. Are win in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban out of power and foster democracy? Or, are we there to kill and capture Al Qaeda and its supporters?
My inclination is towards the latter, especially when you consider the recent trials in Iraq. The problem is it might be too late for that.
22 Responses to “Why Are We In Afghanistan?”
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
We have to get out. Al Qaeda, “The Base”, will not be stopped by us but by the Afghan and Pakistani people just like the Iraqi’s stopped them in their country.
The Afghan people do not like foreigners in their business and since Al Qaeda is basically comprised of foreigners, they will be thrown out just like they have thrown out legions of occupying forces over the centuries.
I don’t see this President staying in Afghanistan long. One year maybe two… max. After that he will tire of it when the Libs grudgingly get a wee-bit restless with the flag-draped coffins and the body counts etc etc etc
I can hear it now. “We’ve been here 2 years and that’s long enough. There isn’t more we can do. Boy it sure has been a loooooong conflict. Asta la bye bye Kabul”
Libs will claim victory, unfurl flags, have a cocktail, and call it a day.
The rest of the world, friend and foe, will go……….huh?
I don’t see this President staying in Afghanistan long. One year maybe two… max. After that he will tire of it when the Libs grudgingly get a wee-bit restless with the flag-draped coffins and the body counts etc etc etc
So what you’re saying is that you’re HAPPY to see our troops die? Gotcha.
I can hear it now. “We’ve been here 2 years and that’s long enough.
We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost 8 years now, or were you literally born yesterday?
We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost 8 years now, or were you literally born yesterday?
I guess that doesn’t count. somehow.
Oh yes, I’m soooo happy to see our soldiers die. Your mother sure raised quite a little moron, Zython.
“I don’t see this President staying in Afghanistan long. One year maybe two… max.”
KEY WORDS: ‘this President’ as in……….HIS WATCH. Get it? Probably not.
just itchin’ to hang this albatross on Obama, eh, Joaquin?
Reminder to all the conservaturds reading: the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq belong to BUSH…he’s the one whose ‘administration’ (more like gang of thugs) started the present mess, and left the room dishevelled and stinking for Obama to clean up.
The sooner we minimize our visibility/presence there (both ‘there’s) the better off we’ll be. Fewer soldiers==fewer targets for snipers, suicide bombers, IEDs, random shooter/stabbers.
Shows how toxic this subject’s become, when the conservatards hasten to run away from it and dump it on the present Administration.
Well, how about OW’s question, joaquin? Are we there to wipe out al Qaeda or are we there to spread freeance and peeance?
I find myself mostly in agreement with Oliver here. Only a few quibbles.
I don’t put such a high priority on capturing the bad guys.
Working towards a stable Afghanistan is a part of getting rid of the bad guys. Otherwise, they’ll just come right back.
I am also troubled by the 17,000 troops figure. The estimates I said called for about 30,000. In military matters, sometimes too little is worse than nothing — witness Mogadishu.
J.
Define stable.
And where was this concern about troop levels before Iraq?
Uh, to be correct, we’ve screwed up Afghanistan for the last 8 years thanks to an incompetent Bush administration.
We’ve lost billions of dollars and our soldiers lives because Bush didn’t care enough or wasn’t SMART enough to get it right.
Obama won’t make the same mistake, trust me. He knows that NO ONE has ever successfully beaten Afghanistan 9in modern times) and that a prolonged intrusion is quicksand. As the Russians.
So, Joachim, as usual, you and your butt-buddies comments are pulled from your ass, or as you call it, YOUR HEAD.
Hunh. I guess we’ll have to put joaquin down as “No Opinion.”
In military matters, sometimes too little is worse than nothing — witness Mogadishu.
Witness Republicans crying out for cutting and running when someone got hurt.
You don’t want answers, Oliver, because you’ve heard them before. You just reject them.
Going into Afghanistan was about two things: destroying Al Qaeda’s command structure (and killing as many of them as we could), and driving the Taliban out of power.
The message was clear: if you fuck with us, we will fuck you over far worse than you can imagine. And if you give aid and comfort and shelter to those who fuck with us, you better sleep with one eye open.
Libya, among others, got that last message.
Iraq was about popping a long-standing, festering zit on the ass of humanity. It had additional benefits of setting up a sizable US/Allied force right in the heart of the assholes. The advantages: quick response, and the “flypaper” effect. Also, a second decisive victory in removing another Muslim tyranny ensured that our response in Afghanistan couldn’t be dismissed as luck, a fluke, or an aberration.
It also put US forces on three sides of Iran.
The point of working to ensure a stable regime in our wake is to keep the assholes from taking power again, and starting the whole mess all over again.
No, not guaranteed to work. But there ain’t no guarantees. This is completely uncharted territory.
J.
Going into Afghanistan was about two things: destroying Al Qaeda’s command structure (and killing as many of them as we could), and driving the Taliban out of power.
We been at it for seven years. How’s it going?
in the heart of the assholes
Metaphor Police! Step away from the keyboard!
Libya, among others, got that last message.
Jesus fucking christ, dude. Are you huffing glue, Jay Tea, because your short term memory appears to be completely shot.
You tried to pass this line off in the threads several weeks ago but, lo and behold, you had your time lines wrongs, your facts wrong and your assessment utterly wrong.
I mean fuck dude, what do you think? That if you stop commenting here for a month or so, you can just come back with the same dumb shit and no one will notice?
Oh gawd. Wing-nut historical revisionism at its worst.
Jay, you are repugnant in your willingness to try and change history.
Invading Afghanistan was about bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Remember all those US soldiers hunting for him in caves and such?
On Afghanistan, Bush and the Republican Congress failed to achieve their goal.
Invading Iraq was not about Saddam, a dictator whom the US happily propped up during the 70′s and 80′s (Rumsfeld was happy to visit Baghdad and warmly shake the guy’s hand). Iraq was about the imminent threat of biological and/or nuclear weapons being used against the US or its proxy, Israel. Remember Colin Powell giving that slide-show based on fake intelligence at the U.N? No? You should.
Sorry, but facts don’t change. People a lot smarter than you could ever hope to be will not allow you to change them, ever, no matter how hard you whine and piss your diapers.
Shorter Jay: YOU FORGOT LIBYA!
Khadaffi was coming in from the cold for a long time before 9/11, reaching out by offering cash to the survivors of Libyan terrorism in the 80′s. Bush II had nothing to do with his change of heart and even if he did, Libya was out of the state-sponsored terrorism business well before 9/11.
As to what should be done with Afghanistan now, who knows. bin Laden is probably in Pakistan. Afghanistan will continue to be a corrupt narco-state. Maybe it would be a good time for Hillary to try and muster up a larger coalition force for the place, but I’m not sure what viability of democracy in the region is. Unlike neo-con fantasists used to claim, Democracy is not a default position.
But I do know that occupations are very expensive, no more so than when the American economy is in the grips of the Bush Recession.
These are not mutually exclusive goals.
Yes. Because US forces had nothing to do with events in Iraq since the Anbar Awakening. Not a thing.
These are not mutually exclusive goals.
You are correct, they are not. One may choose both. However, the correct answer cannot be, “To teach the rest of the world not to [mess] with us!!”
Once…I had a horse that wouldn’t die. So I shot it…Now everyone laughs at me because I have to ride around on an old horse with a big hole in his head….
It can be if the question is “What will nuking the moon teach the world?”.