Why are we in Afghanistan?

[mawilson 2,133]

Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? Well, it's hard to say, because the rationale for our

intervention keeps shifting: first it was to banish al-Qaeda from the region – although,

of course, Osama bin Laden & Co. haven't been seen in those parts since 2001, when we

fumbled an attempt to corner them in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. Now, however,

our war aims seem to have changed: according to Stephen Biddle, a civilian advisor

to the commander of US troops at the Afghan front, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, it's to keep

Pakistan in line, prevent Islamabad from becoming a terrorist "haven" – and keep that

country's nukes out of al-Qaeda’s hands.

Let’s examine Biddle’s argument in favor of the Afghan war – if, indeed, it can be called

an argument in favor at all. Because he's unusually honest about the real stakes involved,

and on account of his position as an advisor to McChrystal, what he has to say is fascinating

from the perspective of an opponent of US intervention.

Biddle dispenses with the "we must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven" argument – raised

repeatedly by President Obama – with admirable swiftness. Yes, he avers, we must make

sure al-Qaeda doesn’t reassert its presence in Afghanistan,

"But the intrinsic importance of doing so is no greater than that of denying sanctuary in

many other potential havens—and probably smaller than many. We clearly cannot afford

to wage protracted warfare with multiple brigades of American ground forces simply to deny

al-Qaeda access to every possible safe haven. We would run out of brigades long before

bin Laden ran out of prospective sanctuaries."

Indeed, if we take the logic of the "no safe haven" doctrine to its ultimate conclusion, then

we must be willing to occupy the entire world – anywhere al-Qaeda could possibly find a

"safe haven." Something tells me such a strategy isn't going to be all that workable.

No, says Biddle, the real reason we must invade and occupy Afghanistan for the next forty

years or so is because of … Pakistan! As he puts it:

“The more important U.S. interest is indirect: to prevent chaos in Afghanistan from

destabilizing Pakistan. With a population of 173 million (five times Afghanistan’s), a GDP of

more than $160 billion (more than ten times Afghanistan’s) and a functional nuclear arsenal

of perhaps twenty to fifty warheads, Pakistan is a much more dangerous prospective state

sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

“Furthermore, the likelihood of government collapse in Pakistan, which would enable the

establishment of such a sanctuary, may be in the same ballpark as Afghanistan, at least in

the medium to long term. Pakistan is already at war with internal Islamist insurgents allied

to al-Qaeda, and that war is not going well. Should the Pakistani insurgency succeed in

collapsing the state or even just in toppling the current civilian government, the risk of

nuclear weapons falling into al-Qaeda’s hands would rise sharply. “

Oh, but wait:

“The United States is too unpopular with the Pakistani public to have any meaningful prospect

of deploying major ground forces there to assist the government in counterinsurgency. U.S.

air strikes can harass insurgents and terrorists within Pakistan, but the inevitable collateral

damage arouses harsh public opposition that could itself threaten the weak government’s

stability. U.S. aid is easily (and routinely) diverted to purposes other than countering Islamist

insurgents, such as the maintenance of military counterweights to India, graft and patronage,

or even support for Islamist groups seen by Pakistani authorities as potential allies against

India. U.S. assistance to Pakistan can—and should—be made conditional on progress in

countering insurgents, but if these conditions are too harsh, Pakistan might reject the terms,

thus removing our leverage in the process. Demanding conditions that the Pakistani

government ultimately accepts but cannot reasonably fulfill only sets the stage for

recrimination and misunderstanding.”

Okay, let’s see if I get this straight: the real problem is Pakistan, not Afghanistan. However,

we can’t go into Pakistan because we’re hated there, and the very act of intervening could

and would give al-Qaeda the kind of momentum it needs to overthrow the Pakistani

government. And we can’t even pressure the Pakistanis to crack down on the Islamists

who may be sympathetic to al-Qaeda, because they can’t do it, and our insisting on it would

only lead to hard feelings and “misunderstanding.”

...

link

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why is there air?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Cuz Obamas a fvckin hypocrite! I guess the left are to busy kizzin his feet to notice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

[Kevin and 10]

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

It is crazy to still be in Afghanistan too. No invading Army/Country has totally succeeded there. The USSR or Genghis Khan couldn't subdue them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

It is crazy to still be in Afghanistan too. No invading Army/Country has totally succeeded there. The USSR or Genghis Khan couldn't subdue them.

Afghanistan was relatively stable through the 20th century. It was the Soviet invasion that really fvcked things up - all the country's intellectual class were either killed or fled into exile.

The Taliban was what came out of the people that stayed behind (an entire generation of young adults basically) fighting each other in the ruins.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Private Pike

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

It is crazy to still be in Afghanistan too. No invading Army/Country has totally succeeded there. The USSR or Genghis Khan couldn't subdue them.

Afghanistan was relatively stable through the 20th century. It was the Soviet invasion that really fvcked things up - all the country's intellectual class were either killed or fled into exile.

The Taliban was what came out of the people that stayed behind (an entire generation of young adults basically) fighting each other in the ruins.

I'd just sometimes like to point out where Pike and I agree. Joking aside (which i usually am, and I am taken seriously, which makes my jokes all the more funny). Well, here's one area we agree on. Hind-sight is 20-20 and I think Afghanistan may be a lost cause.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If we really want the benefit of hindsight, we'll be staying there until that country has a stable, secular government (corrupt or no).

The US funded the Mujahadeen and supplied them with weapons, but did nothing to assist that country when the Soviets pulled out. Everyone left them to their own devices and when the inevitable civil war took place, the educated class who could have helped form a new Afghan state decided (not surprisingly) that they were better off in exile.

The US didn't learn from Iran either - and because The US and the British didn't want that country to nationalise its oil industry we organised a coup, setting the seeds for the 79 revolution and setting that country back decades.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Private Pike

[zqt3344 21]

AHHAHA rightttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! It would be over with and done in hours if USA decided to take them out. Fact.

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If we really want the benefit of hindsight, we'll be staying there until that country has a stable, secular government (corrupt or no).

The US funded the Mujahadeen and supplied them with weapons, but did nothing to assist that country when the Soviets pulled out. Everyone left them to their own devices and when the inevitable civil war took place, the educated class who could have helped form a new Afghan state decided (not surprisingly) that they were better off in exile.

The US didn't learn from Iran either - and because The US and the British didn't want that country to nationalise its oil industry we organised a coup, setting the seeds for the 79 revolution and setting that country back decades.

Right again.

[The_Dude 1,142]

AHHAHA rightttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! It would be over with and done in hours if USA decided to take them out. Fact.

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

Overstatement of the day......

[zqt3344 21]

We need to finish the job and stay the course, we blew out of there back in 1988-89 and forgot about the place and left a brain vacuum and you see what happened the scum Taliban took over. Ovomit needs to grow a pair for a change, and get off the fence and stop giving Talk show tour pep talks(they suck)and get serious and be presidential and SEND IN MORE TROOPS and get real and serious and take the Taliban out and put and end to the nonsense, you see what happened when Bush increased the number of troops in Iraq what happened within 2-3 years the bullshit stopped. The USA is playing patty cake with Afghanistan from the start, go distracted with Iraq and now it is time to divert all attention to Afghanistan and wipe it clean, it needs an enema now! Like GW Bush or not he was right more troops are needed on the ground!

Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? Well, it's hard to say, because the rationale for our

intervention keeps shifting: first it was to banish al-Qaeda from the region – although,

of course, Osama bin Laden & Co. haven't been seen in those parts since 2001, when we

fumbled an attempt to corner them in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. Now, however,

our war aims seem to have changed: according to Stephen Biddle, a civilian advisor

to the commander of US troops at the Afghan front, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, it's to keep

Pakistan in line, prevent Islamabad from becoming a terrorist "haven" – and keep that

country's nukes out of al-Qaeda’s hands.

Let’s examine Biddle’s argument in favor of the Afghan war – if, indeed, it can be called

an argument in favor at all. Because he's unusually honest about the real stakes involved,

and on account of his position as an advisor to McChrystal, what he has to say is fascinating

from the perspective of an opponent of US intervention.

Biddle dispenses with the "we must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven" argument – raised

repeatedly by President Obama – with admirable swiftness. Yes, he avers, we must make

sure al-Qaeda doesn’t reassert its presence in Afghanistan,

"But the intrinsic importance of doing so is no greater than that of denying sanctuary in

many other potential havens—and probably smaller than many. We clearly cannot afford

to wage protracted warfare with multiple brigades of American ground forces simply to deny

al-Qaeda access to every possible safe haven. We would run out of brigades long before

bin Laden ran out of prospective sanctuaries."

Indeed, if we take the logic of the "no safe haven" doctrine to its ultimate conclusion, then

we must be willing to occupy the entire world – anywhere al-Qaeda could possibly find a

"safe haven." Something tells me such a strategy isn't going to be all that workable.

No, says Biddle, the real reason we must invade and occupy Afghanistan for the next forty

years or so is because of … Pakistan! As he puts it:

“The more important U.S. interest is indirect: to prevent chaos in Afghanistan from

destabilizing Pakistan. With a population of 173 million (five times Afghanistan’s), a GDP of

more than $160 billion (more than ten times Afghanistan’s) and a functional nuclear arsenal

of perhaps twenty to fifty warheads, Pakistan is a much more dangerous prospective state

sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

“Furthermore, the likelihood of government collapse in Pakistan, which would enable the

establishment of such a sanctuary, may be in the same ballpark as Afghanistan, at least in

the medium to long term. Pakistan is already at war with internal Islamist insurgents allied

to al-Qaeda, and that war is not going well. Should the Pakistani insurgency succeed in

collapsing the state or even just in toppling the current civilian government, the risk of

nuclear weapons falling into al-Qaeda’s hands would rise sharply. “

Oh, but wait:

“The United States is too unpopular with the Pakistani public to have any meaningful prospect

of deploying major ground forces there to assist the government in counterinsurgency. U.S.

air strikes can harass insurgents and terrorists within Pakistan, but the inevitable collateral

damage arouses harsh public opposition that could itself threaten the weak government’s

stability. U.S. aid is easily (and routinely) diverted to purposes other than countering Islamist

insurgents, such as the maintenance of military counterweights to India, graft and patronage,

or even support for Islamist groups seen by Pakistani authorities as potential allies against

India. U.S. assistance to Pakistan can—and should—be made conditional on progress in

countering insurgents, but if these conditions are too harsh, Pakistan might reject the terms,

thus removing our leverage in the process. Demanding conditions that the Pakistani

government ultimately accepts but cannot reasonably fulfill only sets the stage for

recrimination and misunderstanding.”

Okay, let’s see if I get this straight: the real problem is Pakistan, not Afghanistan. However,

we can’t go into Pakistan because we’re hated there, and the very act of intervening could

and would give al-Qaeda the kind of momentum it needs to overthrow the Pakistani

government. And we can’t even pressure the Pakistanis to crack down on the Islamists

who may be sympathetic to al-Qaeda, because they can’t do it, and our insisting on it would

only lead to hard feelings and “misunderstanding.”

...

link

[Joseph & Ana 0]

AHHAHA rightttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! It would be over with and done in hours if USA decided to take them out. Fact.

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

Overstatement of the day......

Yeah come on. Now you're giving conservatives a bad name. Do Afghanistan and Iraq ring a bell? Both didn't have nukes or much of a military and its taken years and lives. You think Pokestan will take a shorter time?

[zqt3344 21]

Underthinking of today more like it. You under estimate the USA don't you.

AHHAHA rightttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! It would be over with and done in hours if USA decided to take them out. Fact.

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

Overstatement of the day......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

AHHAHA rightttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! It would be over with and done in hours if USA decided to take them out. Fact.

Pakistan is a pretty massive (and populous) country with nuclear weapons, you'd have to be mad to want to go to war there.

That's what Donald Rumsfeld felt about Iraq - that armed resistance would piss off with a giant bombing campaign and a small number of ground troops.

He was wrong, to put it kindly.