I thought it was an overseas contingency operation...

[30ashopper]

The central problem in fighting an "insurgency" is that they are woven into the population. We learned in Iraq that you have to win the hearts and minds of the population in order to have any chance of getting actionable intelligence. We have just started to try to do this in Iraq, and Afganistan will be so much harder considering it's size and lack of infastructure. In other words, we have to prove we can improve the lives and protect the lives of the majority of the Afghans. We simply cannot re-build a fairly primitive country from the ground up. We simply don't have the money or the manpower. We should get out now and try to bolster Pakistan in any way possible.

I don't think this is the case. The Afghani people wanted us to remove the Taliban much more than the Iraqi people wanted us to remove the Bath party. Representatives of the moderate, pro-western Northern Alliance were in Washington in the 90's begging us to do something about them. When we finally invaded they were ecstatic about it. We fought alongside these folks (and still do). Our problems there today stem from Bush's mistake - we lost their confidence when we bailed on them and invaded Iraq. Which ironically, we did to the Iraqi's post the Gulf War. (Something I think we have finally made up for.) There's even some merit to the argument that we bailed on Afghanistan post the Soviet invasion. If we want these people to be our allies, we have to be willing to finish what we start. If we do that, if we stand by these folks and fight for their right for freedom, I think we can regain Afghanistan's trust long term.

I wonder what they think of Obama? I’ve not heard much about how the Afghani people are feeling in the news, I’ll have to do some digging for Afghani blogs on the internet.

 

[Lake View Too]

From my understanding, the only way we can win the people's trust is to take a region and keep our presence there. If we move on, the Taliban moves right back in. We have nowhere near the resources to do that. There is little sense of nation there. It's all tribal. We would have to win, and keep every tribe. It's a huge country. A huge problem.

 

[scooterbug44]

Has anyone read "3 cups of tea?"

Very interesting book about an American guy who went there to climb K2 and ended up building 50+ schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It echoes the theme of "Charlie Wilson's War" that the way to secure our future is not just with military action, but by building schools and educating people...........................because that is certainly what the Saudis are doing - they literally fly in with suitcases full of money and either build schools/mosques or take the best students to Saudi Arabia to indoctrinate them.

Education is the best weapon we have against Islamic extremists.

Three Cups of Tea ? Home

 

[Lake View Too]

Absolutely noble thought, but we cannot get into nation building over there while our nation is fading fast. We have to face the fact that we have very little moral or financial standing in today's world.

 

[scooterbug44]

If our "nation is fading", (which I do not believe is completely true), it is because we are not focusing on education, but on celebrity, money, sound bites, and violence.

The best way to improve the quality of life in an area is to educate their women.

The best way to win a war (and keep it won) is with brains instead of bombs.

Seriously, how many people whose children can now go to school and get an education because an American came to their village and built a school do you think hate America?

Do you really think our enemies are spending millions of dollars a year to build schools there because it's a "noble idea"? No, they are doing it because it is a way to secure alliances and indoctrinate people.

 

[Lake View Too]

I say that our nation is fading because we have almost quadruple the amount of debt of any other country on this planet. We spend $500 million dollars a day on our debt. How in the world are we going to build schools in Afghan? We still, to this day, do not have electricity running in Baghdad 50% of the time, much less the hospitals, clean water, and schools we promised them. We are simply pitiful at nation building because of the inherently corrupt nature of our beauracracy. I bet New Orleans could use a few new schools and hospitals, but who is going to build them, the US Government? I don't think so. Scooter, I'm with you all the way, but the last eight years have broke us, and we got to face up to it.

 

[Geo]

Scooter isn't saying spend more money. She is saying instead of spending what we are now and plan to continue spending on war- redivert these efforts and funds to building schools and other infrastructure...

 

[Lake View Too]

I do understand what Scooter was saying. If we had gone in to Afgan with school building along side our military actions, it would have worked wonders. But it's far too late. Literally trillions of dollars were diverted to "That Other War" and incredible amounts of it were wasted on half-assed rebuilding of that infastructure. To me, the single most obscene aspect of the Iraq war was the profiteering.

 

[30ashopper]

Do you believe these are the objectives our decision makers are looking to meet now?

The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops, a contentious issue as public support for the war slips. But many of the noncombat jobs are likely be filled by private contractors, who have proved to be a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan.

The plan represents a key step in the Obama administration's drive to counter Taliban gains and demonstrate progress in the war nearly eight years after it began.

Forces that could be swapped out include units assigned to noncombat duty, such as guards or lookouts, or those on clerical and support squads.

"It makes sense to get rid of the clerks and replace them with trigger-pullers," said one Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been announced. Officials have spoken in recent days about aspects of the plan.

The changes will not offset the potential need for additional troops in the future, but could reduce the size of any request from Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander, officials said.

U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan -- latimes.com

News like this doesn't make me hopeful. Obama being tentative about troup build-ups indicates he is not committed and may represent a step toward a true quagmire. Bush clearly didn't suffer from "public opinion fatigue" on this issue. I feel this is the primary reason he won the 2004 election.

The whole LATimes article is worth a read as it's quite informative.

 

[scooterbug44]

I do understand what Scooter was saying. If we had gone in to Afgan with school building along side our military actions, it would have worked wonders. But it's far too late. Literally trillions of dollars were diverted to "That Other War" and incredible amounts of it were wasted on half-assed rebuilding of that infastructure. To me, the single most obscene aspect of the Iraq war was the profiteering.

Not just the profiteering (which is apallingly bold) - we could build HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of schools with the amount of money we outright "lost" in transit!!! :angry: