Support for Afghanistan War Only 39% According to New Poll

[buckethead]

Your points are valid and weigh heavily, BT. In order to clean the mess up would require a huge intervention that would undoubtedly kill massive numbers of people, Taliban and civilians alike. The effort would border on genocide.

The Taliban is massive, and has grown rather than subsided despite our efforts to contain them. We would need to wipe them out, virtually to a man, in order to achieve such an objective. Can we really be the World Police? Judge, Jury and Executioner?

Can we justify the casualties that would inevitably accompany a comprehensive dessimation of the Taliban?

Do you actually believe we would do anything but attempt further containment rather than dessimation of the Taliban?

[BridgeTroll]

Earlier the term "half-hearted approach" was used in reference to the effort in Afghanistan.  I do not disagree.  Our approach has been piecemeal and ever changing.  I suggest that proir to "declaring victory" and leaving we get behind a "full-hearted approach" and finish the job.

You mention that my "points are valid and weigh heavily"... Thank you.  I would next ask again...

What would happen to Afghanistan if we leave prematurely?
What would happen to Pakistan?
What will happen to those in that country who tried to create a civilized nation? (Fayes favorite term)

If this goverments answers are...

I dont know... not our problem.
We will worry about that later...
Better get out now...

Then it is time to leave...

[buckethead]

I simply don't know the answers, nor can I predict the future. It is not beyond possibility that a future strike would become necessary. I'm not fully convinced that we should never have gone to Afghanistan. It is very conveluded due to the fact that the Taliban is more of a militia than a government, and far from a nation.

There are atrocities going on all over the world, which we do not lend our military to halt.

The larger issue is a nuclear Pakistan, and what might happen should we withdraw. It's a big issue. I don't know how it would play out, whichever route we take.

I do believe we should refrain from wars unless attacked. Afghanistan did not attack us, but a militia, being harboured by another militia within their borders did: A quandry.

I did buy into the Bush doctrine of pre-emption for a time, but have certainly reconsidered. I'm not clear on what our military objectives in Afghanistan are other than the fact that it has been viewed as "The good war".

[BridgeTroll]

Of course we do not know the answers... but we can make informed and intelligent guesses.  This was my small informed guess at what will happen. 

The Taliban will likely return to power.  They will likely take retribution on those who cooperated with the West.  Can you say "Killing fields part two"?  al qaida will be allowed to operate freely once again.  Children... especially girls... who have actually begun getting an education will be denied access or forced into madrasas for radical jihad indoctrination.  Womens meager rights will be reduced to nothing.  Women actually ran for office in the past election... this will end.

There is nothing here that is just a guess or not forseeable.  It is very likely to happen based on al qaida and taliban statements, past and current actions.

I say again... are you OK for all these things to happen?

Pakistan.  Nuclear armed Pakistan.  Currently we pursue the Taliban and alqaida in a two front war.  We pursue and attack from Afghanistan, Pakistan (in their own way) attack and pursue from Pakistan.  Pakistan understands the Taliban threat and as long as the US is fully vested in the effort they are willing to allow us to use their bases, airspace, and allow special ops incursions into their territory.

If we leave Afghanistan... Pakistan will be in trouble... the Taliban will know it.  al qaida will know it.  Pakistan will know it.  India will know it.  Do you suppose India would allow a Taliban/al qaida Pakistan?

[BridgeTroll]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda... there are a ton of things I would have done differently in my life with the wisdom of time I now have.

I cannot change those things and must live in the here and now.  I must make my decisions on life as it is now... not as it might have been.

Same with Afghanistan...

[Sigma]

Stephen, I agree with you about Charlie Wilson.  Its one of the reasons we are hated over there because we left too early the last time, leaving them vulnerable and therefore the Taliban takeover.

I think that may be what BT is hinting at.  Do we really want to repeat those same mistakes again?  I think not.  That's one reason why the previous administration did not want to leave Iraq or Afghanistan before the governments and security forces stabilized. The current administration seems to feel the same way.  

The media downplays a lot of the infrastructure/hospital/schools which have been rebuilt in Iraq.  Nonetheless, I agree that we need to pursue these efforts in Afghanistan as well.

[buckethead]

I think we are hated in Asia for rar more than leaving Afghani's high and dry. The CIA has been meddling in foriegn affairs for decades.

Our military/CIA presence since the end of WWII has made quite a few perpetual enemies.

Iran comes to mind. We used our military and the CIA to install the Shah. It was in response to Iran nationalizing their oil supply. The United States used coercive force abroad in an attempt to recover private assets in a foriegn nation. That is not the role of the US military nor the CIA. This policy has continued in different forms, in different nations since.

At some point, we must shift this policy. It may seem to have nothing to do with Afghanistan, but IMO it has everything to do with it. It is the big picture that is the problem, not a sum of the individual conflicts.

[Dog Walker]

There are cultures all over the world that are abhorrent to any of us.  Theocracies, kingdoms, sheikdoms, tribal rule, arbitrary justice, subjugation of women, kleptocracies, genocidal military juntas, nasty paranoid little dictators.

Unless we are going, again, to take up the "white man's burden" and colonize all these places and put in place by force our laws and traditions, then we (the Western democracies) are just going to have to let these places evolve on their own.  What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan looks a lot like such Neo-Colonialism to most of the people in the world.

On the other hand we DO have to keep such places from becoming platforms for attacks on our country.  The Taliban government in Afghanistan gave safe haven and support to Osama ben Ladin.  After 9/11 we were perfectly justified, when they refused to turn him over, to going in and kicking them out of power.  Somalia had been smarter earlier on when they saw that he was drawing unwanted attention to them and kicked him out.

Having the CIA and/or special forces "meddle in foreign affairs" is far cheaper in lives and money than a lot of the alternatives.  Communism didn't spread from Cuba to the rest of Latin America did it?  It didn't spread from Vietnam to Thailand and Indonesia either.

We need to be far more careful about using our military power than we have been in the past and realize that "nation building" is not what military power is about (rather the reverse!).  As horrible as the results are, we have to realize our limits and limit our goals in some of these places.

We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and destroyed their military capability.  If we had left then, maybe they would have come back and required us to topple their government again or maybe a coalition of warlords would have come together and taken power.  Distasteful to all of us, but just maybe the best that could be expected.  Some things simply are not our responsibility.

[Sportmotor]

Are you proposing we leave Afghanistan?  What would happen then?  What will happen to Pakistan?  Perhaps the Taliban and al qaida..

Pakistan is part of the problem. That is where a good portion of Taliban, al quaidaa, and the other tribal crazy terriorst arehidding out becuase we cant Offically go in and take them out

[Sportmotor]

Oh and the way to truly win Afganaland and iSandbox(iraq) is with schools.
and us protecting the schools. The way to establish some lasting peace is with long term and full scale involvement in both country's to teach some of the hate out of the children and upcoming generations of sandpeople to give them other options rather then stapbombtoselfrunuptoyoupushBoom mentality that  has bread into them.

At least that would be the best way to win that situation over there

[Sigma]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html

U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans
Story Highlights
Senior U.S. administration official confirms U.S. has scrapped missile plan

Key elements were to have been located in Poland, Czech Republic

Decision likely to appease Russia which had fiercely opposed the plans

Plan proposed by Bush adminstration, has been under review by Obama

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN Thursday.

The comment followed similar statements from officials in Poland and the Czech Republic -- where key elements of the system were to be located -- but was the first confirmation from an American official.

Vice President Joe Biden earlier refused to confirm to CNN that the George W. Bush-era plan was being shelved.

But he did explain the logic of doing so, saying Iran -- a key concern for the United States -- was not a threat.

"I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat," he told CNN's Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.

"The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned -- much less concerned -- about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America," he said.

Biden said he is "deeply" involved in the review of the missile defense program. See how the system would work » | See a map of the proposed sites »

The Bush administration had cited the perceived nuclear threat from Iran as one of the key reasons it wanted to install the missile shield in eastern Europe.

The U.S. reversal is likely to please Russia, which had fiercely opposed the plans.

Is the U.S. right to scrap plans for a missile defense shield in Europe? Sound Off below

A U.S. delegation held high-level meetings Thursday in both Poland and the Czech Republic to discuss the missile defense system. While the outcome of the meetings wasn't clear, officials in both countries confirmed the system would be scrapped.

Czech Prime minister Jan Fischer said in a statement that U.S. President Barack Obama told him in a Wednesday phone call that the United States was shelving its plans. Fischer did not say what reason Obama gave him for reconsidering.

A spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense also said the program had been suspended.

"This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. James E. Cartwright, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are scheduled to hold a news conference Thursday morning. The Defense Department has not announced what will be discussed, but Cartwright is the point man for the missile defense shield program.

Poland and the Czech Republic had based much of their future security policy on getting the missile defenses from the United States. The countries share deep concerns of a future military threat from the east -- namely, Russia -- and may now look for other defense assurances from their NATO allies.

"At the NATO summit in April, we adopted a resolution focusing on building a defense system against real, existing threats, i.e. short-range and medium-range missiles," Fischer said. "We expect that the United States will continue cooperating with the Czech Republic on concluding the relevant agreements on our mutual (research and development) and military collaboration, including the financing of specific projects."

By contrast, Russia may view the move as a diplomatic victory after complaining about the program consistently for years.

There was no comment Thursday morning from Russian officials. But the issue has been a sore point in relations between Washington and Moscow, with Russia believing the shield would ultimately erode its own strategic nuclear deterrent.

With the program scrapped, it opens the way for Russia to join with the United States in taking a harder line on Iran, CNN Correspondent Matthew Chance reported from Moscow.

The United States proposed the plans under then-President George W. Bush, but since taking over this year, the Obama administration has been reviewing whether to move ahead with them.

The missile shield issue came up in July during a meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow. Obama maintained that Russia had nothing to fear from such a system, which would be designed to intercept a solitary missile from Iran or North Korea, as opposed to "a mighty Russian arsenal."

[FayeforCure]

FLORIDA VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE

AFGHANISTAN: TIME TO WITHDRAW (September 2009)



To justify spilling more blood and treasure in Afghanistan , basic questions must be addressed:  Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have an attainable mission? Is the operation “winnable” and is there a plausible exit strategy?



At one time, the United States had a vital interest in Afghanistan and that was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists who found refuge there. We invaded and toppled the government, but allowed bin Laden and other terrorists to flee by diverting troops and material to Iraq .



Since bin Laden and Al Qaeda fled, what vital national security interest remains in Afghanistan ? Bin Laden and Al Qaeda do not need Afghanistan as a sanctuary. Al Qaeda can operate anywhere. Some terrorists who crashed planes into buildings on 9/11 trained to fly in the United States and Al Qaeda is most probably centered in Pakistan , an American ally.



Is the mission in Afghanistan to establish a democratic central government? The central government in Kabul only controls a third of the country. Perhaps the Afghans prefer a decentralized government based on tribes and clans instead of a western style central government propped up by outsiders. We should honor their traditions.



It’s not the job of the United States military to prop up corrupt politicians and failed governments. Afghans must solve their political problems in their own indigenous ways. Our military knows little about Afghan culture or societal organization. It is not designed to build governments, but to kill people and destroy property.



No matter how well intentioned, American troops will be viewed as an occupying power. Interactions between our troops and locals inevitably lead to misunderstandings and resentments. Few soldiers speak any of the Afghan languages. We must ask ourselves, how would American citizens react if foreign troops were stationed in our towns patrolling our streets, stopping us at checkpoints, and killing and maiming our friends and relatives?



A continued presence in Afghanistan is contrary to America ’s vital national security interest. America cannot afford a large, long-term military commitment in Afghanistan in either blood or treasure. Our military has been over-stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. Through August 30, 2009 over 5,000 soldiers have been killed and over 81,000 have been wounded or made ill from the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan . Personnel have served multiple deployments and many suffer post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury from explosive blasts. 



Veterans for Common Sense estimates one million veterans will be treated by VA with as many filing disability claims against VA, which will cost as much as 1 trillion dollars over the next forty years. Our economy cannot afford the staggering costs to maintain military operations in Afghanistan without borrowing from competitor nations or raising taxes that will further cripple our economy. Like the Soviets before us, we weaken ourselves by keeping troops in Afghanistan .



If the mission in Afghanistan is to protect the population, the cost escalates. Afghanistan is about the size of France with a population of over 33 million people. The topography is rugged and mountainous. For American forces to “clear, hold, and build” it will take hundreds of thousands of troops that we do not have available without substantially increasing the size of the army. Every soldier costs about $100,000 to maintain for one year.  (Each additional 10,000 soldiers will cost $1 billion dollars per year.)



The American military is not built to fight a “long war.” We have already been in Afghanistan longer than we fought in both world wars. No one can articulate a time frame for withdrawal.



A new policy is needed for Afghanistan that uses limited military force only when absolutely necessary to hunt, capture or kill identified terrorists who target the United States and our allies.



___________________________________________________________________________

Florida Veterans for Common Sense, Inc., a 501 (c) (4) corporation, 100 Wallace Ave. Suite 255 , Sarasota , FL 34232 contact FLVeterans@aol.com

[JaxBorn1962]

Do you support the Afghanistan war?

Yes & No Yes back when we first went in to KILL the Taliban that had taken over Afghanistan. And No not now, once more we don't seem to know how to Win A War! We should give Afghanistan Two more Years then pull out everyone. We will never win here, there is no way we can kill or try to change the minds of the Taliban. These people remind me of a True Baptist who tell me I'm going to (Hell) if I don't believe what a True Baptist believes  

[FayeforCure]

Veterans for Commom Sense Advocates for GI Bill Benefits


On September 16, VCS sent a Freedom of Information Act to VA to get facts about VA's progress on the Post-9/11 GI Bill.  We wanted to know how many claims were filed, how many were paid, and how long VA took to process claims.


A few days later, VA told reporters only 11 percent of veterans' GI Bill claims were processed, effectively leaving 240,000 or more veterans in no man's land without an answer and without money.  Under the leadership of VA's new Secretary, Eri Shinseki, VA employees pulled a rabbit out of a hat - thousands of them.  VA ordered 58 Veterans Benefits Administration offices, notorious or disability claim delays and denials, to open their doors to about 8,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.


In what can only be described as a miracle, VA paid $3,000 advances to all of them using paper checks.  VCS agrees with Bob Brewin, a reporter at NextGov: "Here's a real "Hooah" for the top leadership at the Veterans Affairs Department." 


Even CNN chimed in with a quote from VCS about Shinseki: "Now over the next few months can he sustain this and get the correct amount of money in the correct time" to veterans?

[FayeforCure]

October 8, 2009
New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist

America’s Limits

By ROGER COHEN

His (Obama's) words last month at the United Nations were important: “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought â€" in word and deed â€" a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Far more than an all-powerful America, Obama sees the constraints of interconnection.

This is a relatively new language for an American president. The notion of the United States as an exceptional power, a beacon for mankind, has resided at the core of the heroic American narrative. From Lincoln through Wilson to Reagan and Bush, the lexicon of American-inspired redemption has been recurrent. American exceptionalism has involved a messianic streak, the belief in a country with a global calling to uplift.

Obama represents a departure from this tradition. Tom Paine said, “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.” The president avoids such resounding exhortations. He even steers clear of the Clinton-era characterization of the United States as “the indispensable nation.”

To the contrary, Obama admits American failings. He does not quite say America is just one nation among many, but he’s unequivocal about the fact that America can’t solve the world’s problems alone or in its image.

He announced the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in this way: “What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries.”

He said Iraq should be “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” with a government that is “just, representative and accountable.” Note the absent words here, quintessential expressions of U.S. ideals: liberty, freedom, democracy. Obama has no illusions about the exportability of democracy.

All this suggests to me that, as he manages expectations downward, Obama will be no more seduced by “the pursuit of the perfect” in Afghanistan than he was in Iraq. I suspect he’ll punt for now on the agonizing question of sending more troops, neither rejecting the military’s requests out of hand, nor making a sizeable commitment. We won’t be hearing too much from the president about Afghan democracy.

America, forced by circumstance, is cashing out. It’s changing perspective, adjusting to a 21st-century world of new power centers. Obama’s new discourse was needed. But unless he can embody possibility in retrenchment â€" “everything money can’t buy” â€" I doubt he can carry the country with him.