We Are Not Winning in Afghanistan

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:21:25 PM EST
Tags: Afghanistan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress today we are not winning in Afghanistan.

Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appeared before the House Armed Services Committee a day after President Bush announced that the U.S. would increase its presence in Afghanistan by 1,500 troops. Gates, who focused on Iraq, told the committee he thought that the U.S. strategy in Iraq has "entered that end game."

Their testimony was a public airing of a discussion that's going on within the Pentagon about how quickly the military can shift its focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. While violence has dropped precipitously in Iraq, it's climbed in Afghanistan. U.S. troop deaths there are higher than Iraq now, despite a far smaller presence. In addition, insurgent groups increasingly are taking control of villages.

Mullen thinks we can win in Afghanistan with more troops and a different strategy. We are not going to save Afghanistan no matter how many troops we put there. [More...]

One of TalkLeft's readers has spent a lot of time there, including recently. In his/her opinion, as stated in comments on another thread:

First of all, Kabul is surrounded on three sides. The Taliban controls the entire south of the country. Herat is overrun with mafia types. The eastern part of the country is now falling. We can't control one border point. The map in Afghanistan will probably look like it did on Sept 10, 2001 in the near future - the Taliban will control the country except for the North, around Mazar-i-Shariff. This will happen WHILE WE ARE THERE.

The government is about to fall. Karzai is universally hated in Afghanistan. He isn't going to win even a rigged election. The corruption in his government makes the Iraqi Govt look like an upstanding civil service.

We can't win. You are talking about people who primarily still think it is the 13th century. There is almost non-existent health services. Women in reality have no rights (they are property to be sold, killed or prostituted). There is no economy outside of illegal drugs for the most part. Karzai's govt is filled with Taliban. Women in Kabul are back in Burkhas.

I hate to tell you this but we have already lost...just like Genghis Khan, the British and the Soviets.

Staying there for national honor is a recipe for disaster. I haven't even gotten into what is coming over the border from Pakistan.

The entire country is rearming ready to start the civil war again. What may I ask is your prescription to prevent this because not even 100,000 troops will do it.

We blew it.

It's time to bring the troops home and stop the wars. Moving troops from one country to another is no solution.

< Obama Fights Back Against McCain Swift Boat Politics | Sarah Palin : Polarizer in Chief >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

We Are Not Winning in Afghanistan | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I just want to say (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by shoulin4 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:35:48 PM EST

that I knew we weren't going to win in Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win, Great Britain couldn't win, hell, we can't even find and kill their leader in the God-forsaken cave that he lives in.

I just wanted Osama bin Laden captured and dealt with. That's it.

This is a complete disaster for our country! I can't believe how awful things are and how much more-awful things can get and there are actually people who are sitting around on their hands complaining about lipstick, pigs, wolves, polls, blues, reds, yellows, Pilate, and even Jesus Christ! I mean, Jesus Christ!!!!

Canada is looking better and better every day . . .

History indicates that foreign soldiers are like (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by JSN on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:51:28 PM EST

pathogens and the Afghans are like white corpuscles and the patient is too tough to die.

Time to come home (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:56:56 PM EST

I think we lost that war over five years ago when we walked away after promising to stay and build the country. The Afghan people probably lost any faith they had in us then.

To go back to correct our mistakes will take years, thousands of lives and more money than we'll want to spend. If Obama pursues this, he'll be a one term president unable to accomplish any of his objectives. The American public is weary of war.

Afghan opinion (none / 0) (#1)
by Dadler on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:33:21 PM EST

Report on Afghan reaction to the possibility of more American troops there.

Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it.

And the bad beat goes on.

: Interesting (none / 0) (#4)
by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM EST

I remember when these pieces were being produced to show how much the Iraqis hated us too.
I wonder if the footage is new, or if they just changed the voice over?

Seriously? (none / 0) (#2)
by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:36 PM EST

With a few minor revisions this could have been the exact same argument used against staying in Iraq.

This very passionate argument tends to overlook the facts that most of our allies in Afghanistan are operating under rules of engagement which specifically prevent them from actually helping.

Moreover, as opposed to "Genghis Khan, the British and the Soviets," the Afghan people know we're not there with the intent of establishing a colony. Before you ask "how do you know?" and start to discount everything that doesn't fit with your worldview, I am basing this on the experiences and conversations with a friend of mine in Naval intelligence who has been working in Afghanistan for the last couple of years. James is about as apolitical person as I have ever met, so I believe his opinions.

I always find it interesting that those who value and cherish their own freedoms and decry the fact that their political "enemies" are encroaching on them are so quick to ignore others.

If we want to pull out because we don't care, fine. But just say it, the pseudo-analytical stuff is just so much window dressing.

I don't want to "win" (none / 0) (#5)
by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:41:00 PM EST

I want a goal that is in the national interest, and a plan that can achieve it at a reasonable cost.

Absent those things, I can see no reason for us to be there at all. The fact that Afghanistan was "the good invasion" is no longer relevant.

And I don't even know what "winning" is supposed to mean any more.

Agreed (none / 0) (#10)
by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:07:52 PM EST

I would be happy if we could stabilize the country and get out.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that until OBL and his friends are gone it will never have a possibility to happen.

Leaving now just makes it all that much harder to get people to trust us in the future. Case in point, Poland signs a missile treaty with us in defiance of Russia and Congress cuts funding for the program. Do we honestly believe that other countries in the future will trust us to keep our word and take a risk?

I am constantly hearing how "words matter" when did actions stop mattering? Hell, when did giving someone your word stop mattering?


: Well (none / 0) (#12)
by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:23:04 PM EST

I'm not clear on exactly what the promise was and to whom it was made.
We didn't invade Afghanistan to do anyone a favor, we did it because the regime was harboring the people who attacked us on 9/11. I'm not saying I feel no obligation to the people of Afghanistan, but I'm saying it can't just be an open-ended commitment with no regard to the cost or the likelihood of success.

I had thought that the reason we were in (none / 0) (#6)
by Christy1947 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:50:14 PM EST

Afghanistan was to chase Bin Laden, not to try to wipe out an entire, if horribly conservative, sect of Islam. But somehow, the Taliban became part of our target, and we joined all those other folks who don't 'win' in Afghanistan, several hundred years of not winning. (And, yes, I know, they are the number one opium poppy growing nation and are trying to move up to Heroin, but if we can't invade South American countries over coke, we can't invade these guys over poppies either.)

: The taliban (none / 0) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM EST

was always the target from the beginning since they were the ones sheltering OBL.

I wish Tier One and Tier Two could get it together (none / 0) (#13)
by lambert on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST

AP:

Bush said a Marine battalion scheduled to be sent to Iraq in November will instead be deployed to Afghanistan, followed by an Army combat brigade early next year. In all, that would add 4,500 to 4,700 combat troops in Afghanistan.
Less than two hours later, Obama went before reporters during a campaign stop in this Midwestern battleground to respond.
"His plan comes up short -- it is not enough troops, not enough resources, with not enough urgency," Obama said. "The next president will inherit a status quo that is still unstable."
The Democratic presidential nominee said Bush doesn't understand that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the war on terrorism, not Iraq. He said his Republican White House rival, John McCain, doesn't get that, either.

Stop trying to undermine Obama's leadership!

4 more years of war on the horizon (none / 0) (#14)
by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:05:36 PM EST

We could continue to shuffle this battlefield around the world. Africa seems ripe for the terrorists. We need to realize we can't bomb our way out of this. I was sincerely hoping Obama would use all diplomatic tools available before he sent more troops off to war.