Comments on: Winning in Afghanistan, Whether From Offshore or Onshore

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:27:50 +0000

That has been tried/is being tried, Greendreams. I believe I read an article mentioning that and some of the associated problems:

The insurgents, drug lords and warlords offer the farmers more money than we do; they intimidate, coerce, and even rape the farmers' women, or kill those who cooperate with the "enemy," etc. So, in addition to buying their opium, we also still have to protect them, and that takes troops. I'll see if I can find the article.

Thanks

Dorian

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:52:53 +0000

Why can we not try a non-military strategy for once? The country, like every country, runs on money. Want to displace the drug lords, war lords and Taliban? Buy the county's output, especially its agricultural output. This year we buy all the opium. Next year we contract them to grow us a legal crop (how about dry land wheat?) at a higher price (not that difficult as farmers really don't make that much on poppies).

The populace becomes beholden to us for cash, we become both their friends and employers, and we choke off the funds for the opposition. The cost, both in money and blood, is far lower than the hopeless pursuit of victory through military action.

By: EEllis

EEllis — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:28:17 +0000

Personally I think when you make a commitment you do your best to fulfill it. We went in and removed the Govt and we have a responsibility to leave behind a govt that is self-supportable when we go. To do less is just dishonorable.

And there is no hope of achieving anything from “offshore”

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:55:50 +0000

I agree with you, keelay, on both points: George Will not being a neocon (perhaps even an "honest broker) and your concerns about the Taliban.

Thanks for your comments

Dorian

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:52:45 +0000

DawsonL:

Thanks for your comments

You are correct that things started going better and faster for the mujahedeen when the U.S. (through the efforts of Charlie Wilson and others at the CIA) started to provide hundreds of stinger missiles and other forms of aid to the insurgents, especially the Massoud forces ; made military victory for the mujahedeen an official goal; and started to provide better training, logistics support and direction to the insurgents.

However, it is my humble opinion that the Afghan fighters would have eventually inflicted such unacceptable losses to the Soviets, that they would have eventually worn them out and driven them out---as they have done to so many others who have challenged the fierce Afghan fighters in the past

I, as you, also worry about leaving the Taliban to continmue to be a threat.

Dorian

By: keelaay

keelaay — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:28:09 +0000

While I much more often than not disagree with Mr. George Will, I believe he is an honest broker and his opinions are, by and large, reasoned and consistent. His arguments add value to the debate. Will is in my view a consistent anti-interventionist conservative — and no neocon.

The Taliban on the other hand, I definitely worry about….

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:32:01 +0000

Afghanistan is another republican screw-up of the last administration. Leave both Afghanistan and Iraq and cut the defense budget back to were it was pre 9/11.

We MUST concentrate on domestic issues or we will be loosing our nation from within. Which is exactly what these insurgents want us to do, and, have planned it to happen exactly the way that it is happening.

By: dawsonL

dawsonL — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:09:13 +0000

About the unbeatable Afghan, the book and movie “Charlie Wilson's War” points out that the Afghan resistance almost collapsed even with the money being sent by the US and allies until they got Stinger missles to even the playing field. Of course the big difference between us and the Soviets is that we have FINALLY moved to protect civilians. I agree that we missed two windows of opportunity. One in the early 90's when the Soviets withdrew and again in 2001/2003 when the Taliban was first smashed. Is the window closed for good or do we have a third chance? Don't know. However, I keep coming back to if we leave the Taliban probably takes over and in a few years there are training camps for the next batch of Kenya Embassy bombers; USS Cole bombers; 9/11 bombers.

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:31:03 +0000

At least he didn't also say, “Where are the WMDs, Barack? Somewhere on Martha's Vineyard?”

By: Frith_Ra

Frith_Ra — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:25:06 +0000

If we hadn't have distracted ourselves with that fool's errand in Iraq I believe that we could have been done with & out of Afghanistan before Bush got really settled into his second term.

It's moot now, being that the allotted window has passed, but about 4,000 Americans now deceased would still be here if we had done it right the first time. Now it may be too late to fix it.

By: Valuable Internet Information » Winning in Afghanistan, Whether From Offshore or Onshore

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:23:05 +0000

[...] Read more: Winning in Afghanistan, Whether From Offshore or Onshore [...]