Coming Consensus on Afghanistan

Yes of course we should pull out of Afghanistan. We need to spend those billions on healthcare, education, and, developing clean energy. These will go much farther in defending the United States than bashing around a backward and impoverished nation with our military.

Well unlike Iraq, this country actually was tied into the GWOT and was the training ground for Al-Queda. Now that Pakistan is finally putting pressure on the tribes from their side, we need to maintain the pressure from our side. Giving up now when we are finally able to devote the resources that were being uselessly tied up in Iraq seems like a bad idea.

And what do we do when that Taliban who has already showed they would like to kill American civilians set up new bases and work on engineering further attacks with impunity? This is actually very different from Iraq. Before our invasion, there was virtually no one there operating with the intention of killing Americans in America. There is no strong reason to think that when we leave Iraq there will be large swaths of the country training to attack American civilians. But in Afghanistan, that's exactly what we have. If you can convince me that when left alone the Taliban will struggle entirely within the borders of Afghanistan, and not come to us again, and you can convince me that giving the Taliban a free stronghold just on the border of a nuclear-armed nation with varying will to fight the Taliban, Pakistan, is fine, then I can agree we should leave to let the Afghan people to deal with their own issues. But when leaving means more attacks on civilians, I cannot easily go along. Again, this is not like Iraq, where there may or may not have been some talk perhaps of something in the future.... The Taliban actually attacked and seems to still desire to do so.

There's another big difference between Iraq and Afghanistan which is we hadn't already been fighting for eight years when we went into Iraq. Another is we didn't have a huge expanding deficit when we went into Iraq. Maybe those shouldn't be factors in deciding on when to go to war but from a pragmatic standpoint they are. I'm not sure the nation has the stomach for another decade of fighting.

On the Taliban - I think they were dealt with from a punitive standpoint already and at this point the war is mostly tactical and defensive, and intelligence will be just as if not more important than military force. Still I value the general's opinions and like another post says would believe Petraeus over George Will.

I am sorry and I know many or all will disagree but I think this is freaking idiocy. First the guys we were fighting are still there and they are not a popular insurgency, that was the danger in Iraq. The populace is just as unhappy with the jihadists as they are with the Gov.
If we actually went in and did it right, get rid of the war lords and bring in actual civil society and aid the people of Afgh. would be very happy with the results. As it stands at best we will continue on the same path which is long but I think ultimately successful one. I think we also need to deal with Pakistan though, not militarily but I would not take it off the table, they need to stop this at its roots and the roots are in Pakistan and Saudi Freakin Arabia that we will never touch with a ten foot pole, even though if we really wanted to go after the seat of this problem we would go there and free the people from that monarchy. Part of what fuels the extremist groups talking points about the US is our support for monarchs and dictators.
You don't have to fight them or be hostile in any way you just need to take a stance of neutrality when it comes to the people rising up against those that oppress them. Instead historically we either instigate the coups or we help fund or help fight generally on the side of the rich aka those already with power. Of course that will not change though as the corporations would lose to much money, banana republics have certain benefits for them.

There is something so fundamental that I am surprised it hasn't been more thoroughly discussed. For almost 3 millennia, yup 3,000 years, no foreign power has ever been able to conquer/control what we now call Afghanistan. It starts with Alexander the Great and continues through the former Soviet Union
.
Every commentator on Afghanistan everyone should be required to read Peter Hopkirk's "The Great Game". Both the current and its predecessor are manifesting the same level of historical ignorance of Central Asia that the Johnson administration did Southeast Asia.

We did have a chance in 2001 and 2002, but the ignoramuses in the Bush administration fired at the wrong target.

Even then, we still had an opportunity to empower a few Afghan leaders to develop a fairly uncorrupt government- a short window. Had we been willing to invest the money, we might have at least a neutralized Taliban and Al Qaeda today.

It really is madness to continue to pursue the current course. Of course, we will have more problems with Pakistan but, even the ISI seems to have awakened to the dangers of the monster they and we created in the 1990's in Afghanistan. That monster of insane Islamist terrorism will be a feature of the geopolitical landscape for many years to come. We should seek to contain it in Central Asia, a la George Kennan. I know Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a much slipperier bunch to contain than the Soviets. But, judiciously spent money and seeking local leaders with some integrity will accomplish more than all the military forces we have in the region.

We have more or less extracted ourselves from one ridiculous quagmire. It seems we are intent on sloshing into a new one.

Sometimes you just have to say enough.