This is a MUST READ about Afghanistan by Grantcart - who gave me permission

[cliffordu]

to post it here. Grantcart was in vietnam after the war helping settle refugees...The man has knowledge of the Vietnam aftermath that only someone with boots on the ground can have,....

And he was a civilian, not a grunt. Wandering around postwar vietnam without a weapon makes me laugh. The bravery inherent in that is off the hook far enough to be hilarious.

Anyway, here is the best fucking reasons for staying in Afghanistan I can think of

Take it away, Grantcart:

Unable to participate in the various threads on Afghanistan due to travel and time constraints below are some concerns I have on the complex nature of the President's decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. Its a long rant, you probably don't want to read it all but I apprecieate the chance to vent a little.


An odd wind is blowing in the blogosphere of the left, Afghanistan is now seen as a purely ideological and simple decision:


"Leave now and end the War."


Well wars don't end. Fighting can end. The United States can end its involvement, but war continues. This war in Afghanistan did not start in 2002 but in the 1980's, it is a direct extension of the upheavals that the Soviet interference and invasion brought to Afghanistan. An abrupt departure doesn't stop or diminish the suffering or the collateral damage.

I am reminded of King Sihanouk who returned to Cambodia to become the figure head of state with the Khmer Rouge in 1975. It looked so simple as he beckoned Cambodians living overseas to return to help rebuild Cambodia. Hundreds did, including dozens of his own relatives. Virtually all of them died in the chaos that has become known as 'The Killing Fields'. Lofty rhetoric does not equate with happy endings.

The President speaks of "finishing the job" and I find that somewhat unfortunate. The war in South East Asia is not finished. Agent Orange continues, land mines in Cambodia continue and millions of families continue to carry the scars of that war. Conflicts continue to burn but I understand him to mean finishing the job of helping Afghanistan stabilize and defend itself.



Some have appointed themselves "high bishops" of the left and have made some of the following pronouncements from on high:


"There is only one position that any person on the left can have on Afghanistan."

"Afghanistan is like Vietnam."

"Afghanistan and Iraq were both evil wars from the beginning."

"The Afghans never have had a central government and have never left the 15th century."

"Obama has moved so far to the right that he has lost me."


Maybe like you I find myself in an unusual position in reading attacks from the left on the President's perceived position on Afghanistan. Having been against almost all of the armed conflicts the country has engaged in during my lifetime I find my default position to be reluctant to agree to any armed conflict, but I am not a pacifist and sometimes war can significantly reduce human suffering. Imagine how paradoxical it was to be in Phanat Nikom Transit Camp (this camp would become the United States largest modern 'Ellis Island' as the last pre airport stop for hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian refugees) in 1980.




If you stood in the Vietnamese side where you would be talking with Vietnamese who were pushed out of Vietnam because of their Chinese ethnicity you would find the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) demonic. If you wandered over to the Khmer side where they were able to flee the Khmer Rouge then the SRV was seen as angelic.

In the same vein I consider the Afghanistan question to be a very difficult and complex issue.

For that reason it will be lengthy but at least I can get it off my chest.



1) Answering the President's critics.
2) The strategic issues
3) Questions I hope the President will answer



1) Answering the President's critics

I am glad that people in the Democratic Party are not naturally enthusiastic about war and want to question it. There are some substantive voices that ask well thought out questions in an effective way with relevent research (bigtree is one example).

That type of criticism of the President, unfortunately, is a minority of the voluminous rants against the President from the left. Many times there are so many factual mistakes in the interlocutor's argument that it is simply too much of a waste of time to try and clear up obvious factual inaccuracies and then try to discuss the elements of the logic of the argument.

Here are 5 common attacks that one can frequently hear:


I) "There is only one position that anyone on the left can have on Afghanistan"

I have been told this by several "self appointed bishops of the leftist orthodoxy".

The problem with this is that leaving Afghanistan doesn't end anything except direct involvement of American troops at this time.

This argument is based on the premise that "Afghanistan no longer is of any strategic interest to the United States". This argument was most strongly put forth by Matthew Hoh when he resigned his position as a "Senior Civilian Representative" and can be read here:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/Resigna...

Mr. Hoh's argument that the initial reason for invading Afghanistan is no longer valid, that Al Queda is no longer using Afghanistan as a major training and staging location, and that if they attempted to return with visible infrastructure they could easily be dispatched with Predator and missile attacks.

This part of the argument is 100% correct. What Mr. Hoh and the "Bishops" have not addressed are other strategic concerns that now exist. Simply because the original reason for going to Afghanistan has been eliminated does not mean that no other reason now exists. Those other reasons are discussed below.

II) "Afghanistan is like Vietnam"

Really? Mullah Omar is like Ho Chi Minh? There is a substantial group of people outside the Taliban that are naturally allies like the Viet Cong were to the North Vietnamese?

Well first lets see how well we understand Vietnam

Here is a test on some key facts about Vietnam. Which statement about Vietnam is not true?


a) Vietnam is the only country to have defeated the United States military.

b) After the Americans left and the country was unified the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam were unified and able to concentrate on domestic issues without worrying about war.

c) The "Tet Offensive" was a military disaster for the United States

d) Picture of Americans assisting people leaving the US Embassy in Saigon.




Answers at the end.

With so much misunderstanding about what happened it makes any comparison with Afghanistan highly problematic. If you were going to make any comparisons, however, you could make a much better comparison between the Taliban and the Khmer Rouge. The North Vietnamese were highly urban and were fighting a multi century battle for national independence. The Khmer Rouge were not very bright rural thugs who wanted to return their country to a non existent ancient time of paradise. If any group is likely to eventually repeat the KR insane policy of emptying out the cities and returning its population to the idyllic pre electricity past it is the Taliban.

Of course any comparison has to be superficial at best, but frankly if the Taliban were an organized dictatorship that was committed to national independence and modernizing the country I would gladly hand the country to them and work on seducing them back in 20 years like we have with the Vietnamese.

III) "Afghanistan and Iraq were both evil wars from the beginning."

Like most revisionist history you don't know whether to laugh or cry. The Taliban were in open support of a long campaign of terrorist attacks by Al Queda. The offered sanctuary, logistics and infrastructure to their allies.

The more aggravating part of this argument is however is that it seriously diminishes the real treachery of Bush/Cheney in instigating a war of aggression in Iraq by implying that all wars are equally bad.


IV) "The Afghans never have had a central government and have never left the 15th century."

Some comments have gone even further, almost to the point of racism in diminishing the value of Afghans as a people. The fact is that Kabul not only had an effective central government but that it was one of the most liberal in Central Asia. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

Basically from 1919 to 1973 it was a beacon of gender equality. It is true that the topography limited the effectiveness of the central government in highly remote areas, but that was and is still true in Pakistan, India and China.

V) "Obama has moved so far to the right that I can no longer support him"

Candidate Obama was very precise in his language and in most cases he is carrying out the policies that he said he would and this holds true in Afghanistan. The policies of candidate Obama including engaging in diplomatic overtures to Iran and North Korea were all considered "too reckless" during the Democratic Party primaries.

The reality is that there is an endemic narcissism in the left. We don't like to be apart of a disciplined political operation that marches to orders and gets results. We want to preen in our own ideological sun, illuminating others. To a degree we are all guilty of this, we come from that part of society that loves the pursuit of knowledge and wants to challenge orthodoxy, even our own. The ritual bashing of Obama has reached a point reflexive ideological one ups manship that pushes its practitioners to higher and higher levels of condescension of the President. Sometimes it requires that the gag reflex must be 'disabled' in order to read the comments.


2) The Strategic Issues

As Mr. Hoh has noted the initial strategic reason for being there is no longer operative. The new situation does pose some strategic issues that are even more important than the original one.


a) Pakistan/India stability.

Many people understand that sectors of Pakistan security have tolerated the Taliban because of sympathy to their common religious beliefs. The primary reason that some in the Pakistan military support the Taliban is because they know that they would be defeated in a conventional war with India and use the Taliban as a proxy in an asymmetrical strategy to keep India off balance. Al Queda desperately wants to ignite a full out conflict between India and Pakistan. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai has generated a growing consensus in Pakistan that the Taliban now represent a threat to the security and need to be contained. For the first time we are seeing coordinated campaigns with Pakistan assisting.

b) The Development of Afghanistan as a Narco-State.

While unlikely to be providers of training camps for Al Queda, the Taliban could provide Al Queda with a source of income that would replace the money lost by efforts to cut it off from its middle east support. This could provide substantial support for many low boiling terrorist actions that continue to export terror around the world. Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq there are many ongoing terrorist campaigns that aim at innocent civilians around the world. Indonesia is one and Thailand is another. More than 3,000 Thai civilians have been killed (more than died on 9/11). Many of these were minor civil servants and teachers who were shot by killers on motorcycles while they walked home from work.

Russia is now experiencing an epidemic of heroin abuse:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-f...



This is not a small problem, it helps reinforce the power of organized crime in Russia. It could significantly destabilize Russia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-f...

It's just one small sign of a vast hidden epidemic of heroin use that Russian officials and civil society groups say threatens the very existence of the nation. "It's a threat to our national security, our society, and our civilization itself," said Viktor Ivanov, Russia's top drugs official, at a meeting with reporters recently. He estimated that there are more than two million drug addicts in Russia, which amounts to one addict for every 50 Russians of working age, a level that is up to eight times higher than in EU countries.

Most of these people are addicted to heroin which transits from Afghanistan, through central Asia, and across the long and porous border from Kazakhstan into Russia. There are people addicted to heroin across Russia's 11 time-zones, and the country's anti-drugs body says that Russia now uses more heroin than any other country in the world.

c) Collateral Damage




Many people have a rather naive understanding of collateral damage. It is right to be concerned about the collateral damage of dozens of civilians who die as a result of a misdirected bomb. The real collateral damage is when a new dictatorship takes over and engages in ethnic cleansing and ideological purging that results in hundreds of thousands of refugees and tens of thousands of deaths (Vietnam and the former Yugoslavia) or when a regime takes over a brutal utopian restructuring of society (Cambodia).

Pulling out troops doesn't eliminate our responsibility for what comes next.


3) Questions I hope the President will answer.

a) The Afghan National Army has, by many sources, shown significant improvement and even has significant Pashtun numbers. Unfortunately it does not seem to be drawing many from the Pashtun South. What is going to be done to increase Pashtun from the South? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d81_1217794548 What can be done to double the size of the ANA in two years?

b) The Afghan Police have become the achilles heal of nation building. It needs radical restructuring or it could undue everything that the Army is doing. http://www.rawa.org/police-3.htm

c) Gen. Chrystal's emphasis on improving security for the average Afghan sounds laudable but, like here security means nothing if people don't have jobs and an income. The US should only be involved in increasing Afghan security in areas that it is also bringing real improvements in the quality of life; roads, electrification and jobs. How are we going to improve the quality of life for the average Afghan that we are protecting. Security without a quality of life simply breeds resentment.

d) Don't let the DEA mindset dictate Opium interdiction. It is preferable to let the farmers grow the opium and buy it back from them, putting them back to work at something they know, and then buying the product legally than going in and destroying their crops. In Thailand the Thai government followed the DEA's instructions for years with limited results until if started a program to let the farmers grow opium and then weaned them off of it by buying their crops but insisting that each year a slightly higher percentage of other crops were planted. Price subsidies helped farmers make a decent living off of other crops and they voluntarily stopped opium production.

Forcible opium eradication doesn't eradicate opium but it does create permanent enemies as hardworking farmers see their years income go up in smoke.

e) Seal the Pakistan/Afghan border. With Pakistan help and use of the Predators we should be able to eliminate, especially in winter, non authorized transit between the two countries.

f) Make this fight a fight of Afghans against the foreign fighters of Al Queda and the Taliban. Reports are that 4,000 foreign fighters now fight for the Taliban http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/10/world/main537... Having a realistic but firm exit strategy will assist in painting the Taliban as an increasing Pashtun exclusive force that must rely on foreign support.

I look forward to the President's address and his continuing ability to command a deep understanding of the important issues.

If you made it this far I thank you for letting me share my rant, I will be travelling so most likely won't be able to join in any discussion that follows.







Answers to the Vietnam Quiz

a) The United States military left Vietnam in 1973, the North started what is now called "The Ho Chi Minh Offensive" in 1975. General Giap has written on the point "We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim" http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/magazine/giap-remembe... There is no society on earth that would sustain a million military casualties in a stalemate that would consider that a 'military victory'.

b) Well this statement is wrong on all points. After the war the North Vietnamese purged the Viet Cong and eliminated them, considering them ideologically impure, and then invaded Cambodia and took over the government there, and then they were invaded by China in a massive Sino-Vietnamese War (also called the Third Indochina War). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

c) The Tet Offensive was a public relations disaster for the US but it was a military disaster for the Viet Cong. After the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong were left completely exposed and 30,000 Vietnamese militia were killed. Some people speculate that the North deliberately withheld their promised support because they wanted the Viet Cong eliminated militarily so that when the country was eventually reunified they would only have Viet Cong politicos to deal with.

d) The most iconic photo of Vietnam in April 1975 is almost universally labeled as Vietnamese leaving the US Embassy. It was not. In what was considered the worst kept secret of the war, dependents of CIA employees were instructed to go to several pick up points as soon as they heard Bing Crosby singing "I am dreaming of a White Christmas". This picture is one of those CIA evacuations at the Pittman apartments.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.gu...

[ShortnFiery]

1. If it's from GC, it's going to be wordy and, IMO, conservative and pro- war.

"It is right to be concerned about the collateral damage ..."

Thanks for the permission. :silly:

[cliffordu]

3. ..And you have my permission to continue to feel superior to everyone else

while standing on the bodies of the dead.

I wonder, does that shattered child give you a chubby? You use her like she's your anti-war poster bimbo...

To make a victim of war a clever greeting card is beyond the pale.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Oh stop with the histrionics: Using simple examples that contrast GC eloquent AEI rhetoric

The two of you folks complement each other nicely.

No, I'm the veteran who is against SENSELESS Killing ... In my name (AMERICA). :thumbsdown:

[cliffordu]

12. Histrionics?//

I'm against senseless killings, too...The aftermath of Vietnam made me understand exactly what GC is saying.

I know what he really stands for by observing where he has walked. Cannot say the same for you, however.

And like I said, I'm against senseless killings, but have no need to exploit the dead and wounded with artsy fartsy smartassed references to 1984 while sitting on my ass.

Must be nice to have everything painted so black and white. The purity must be special.

[ShortnFiery]

15. Yes, I was correct the first time. Histrionics.

Have a good evening. :hi:

[proteus_lives]

46. She's calling people on histrionics?

:rofl:

[cliffordu]

47. Strange but true.

I'm thinking she likes the pornography of violence.


Why else repeatedly post butchered bodies with cute references to 1984???

[proteus_lives]

61. dupe

[proteus_lives]

62. "Why else repeatedly post butchered bodies with cute references to 1984???"

Simple: Because she actually has nothing to say.

[Cha]

16. You're the one jumping around histrionically.

[cliffordu]

17. That's that one's favorite past time.

[ShortnFiery]

22. But your favorite past times are seemingly post "tag teams" and "sycophancy?"

:evilgrin:

[Cha]

26. Yeah, it's rather obvious and calling anyone "sychophants"

who don't bow down to her paranoia.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Oh, you jumped in. Did you be sure to tap/tag out?

:rofl:

[Cha]

31. I feel sorry for you and your hysterical paranoia.

[ShortnFiery]

33. I feel sorry for you and your need for approval from perceived "authority" and "tag team antics"

Gee, I can be much more specific in my critique. ;)

[cliffordu]

36. Your criticisms are as childish as your reprinting of the double plus nonsense.

Very telling.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Your over-reaction says much more about you and Cha, than it does about me.

Have a good one! :hi:

[cliffordu]

42. What happened to the mutilated little girl you're exploiting?

I don't see her picture now.

[ShortnFiery]

43. I rest my case. eom

[cliffordu]

44. Answer the question. You have no case.

[rockymountaindem]

109. If anybody around here engages in histrionics, it's you

You seem to think those sophomoric little cards are the answer to everything since you make nary a post without them. Maybe the OP is riddled with flaws, but I don't see how we're supposed to understand that based on your oh so witty juxtaposition of images that you always grace us with. Maybe you could actually say something for a change instead of always going back to the same well of imagery.

[Cha]

2. Thanks for bringing grantcart's OP to GD, cliff.

It's informative and interesting to read by someone who has a grasp of history in those areas.

[cliffordu]

4. And thanks to you, too - for showing folks the original OP over in the

Obama group.

[Cha]

9. You're welcome..information like

this needs to be shared.

[goclark]

24. I will bookmark ~ thanks grantcart nt

[Kaleva]

5. Bookmarked and rec'd.

[Warpy]

7. 3d is vitally important

and one reason the Pashtun south isn't on board is the DEA mindset.

They need to evict all the drug warriors from that country. Eradication is not the way to proceed against poor people who have no other means of support. It will set up the next several wars and make the area hospitable to groups like Bin Laden's again and again. It is working that way in much of South America and it will work that way in Afghanistan.

The best way to end their dependence on opium as a cash crop is to substitute something else while legalizing and regulating drugs to take the profit out of them.

Only the black market and the enormous quantities of money being made from illegality, itself, is supporting bad guys across the globe, from warlords in Afghanistan to narco gangs in Mexico.

This is a great article. I only wish you'd saved it for tomorrow so it would end up on the front page.

[Cha]

18. Why can't it still end up on the front page or at

least the greatest?

And, I agree with your assessment of the importance of 3d.

[Shanti Mama]

8. "Pulling out troops doesn't eliminate our responsibility for what comes next. "

This is so true. Thank you.

The "No War at Any Cost" reaction is much too simplistic. We have created an ongoing future cost, particularly to Afghan and Pakistani women, that is completely unacceptable. I have two friends working for USAID in Afghanistan right now, each in real danger every day. They are both liberals, progressives, fought the good fight for Obama's election. I trust their reports that much of our military, which they help direct in development projects, is well-received and doing things to improve lives and livelihoods. Does this make War with a capital W ok? Of course not. It points out that few have even a tiny fraction of the current information and historical perspective necessary to hold an intelligent conversation about the future of the US in Afghanistan.

Namaste.

[ShortnFiery]

10. How about NO WAR because al Qaeda is NOT in Afghanistan?

How about stopping KILLING the people who did NOT attack us on 9/11?

The words are so well put and the author is of super high intelligence, but no, I'm not buying it.

[Shanti Mama]

39. Why the combative responses?

Stop killing people... is one answer and an easy one. One I often agree with. But in this particular case just maybe it's important to look at all the dimensions of the problem and not just one.

[ShortnFiery]

41. Points taken.

However, we can and should pull all our combat troops out of both occupied nations.

Every day we occupy these two Muslim nations, Americans are less safe, both at home and abroad.

I'm not a simplistic person, but the above statement is "simply true."

[cliffordu]

69. PLEASE invite your friends to write long essays on what they are doing for us

here at DU - with photos if they can get them out.

I know there are a lot of folks doing great things over there and I'd like to hear about it from the principals.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. This looks interesting but it's too late tonight for me to do it justice

I'll post tonight so I can find it tomorrow when I've a clear head to read it all.

[cliffordu]

14. Mui Excellente, good friend.

[notesdev]

13. On strategic issues, there's a mindset that has to change

That mindset is that everything that happens anywhere in the world is our business. This is the foundation of empire, the "globocop" role, and the present military-political complex.

The bottom line on that is that it is an unaffordable utopian pipe dream. We are being beggared by it.

Other countries are not children that need daddy USA to keep them in line. They are nations of self-determining people as is their fundamental human right.

As a nation, the USA has no vital interest in Afghanistan, hence the difficulty of enunciating a strategic objective.

Another thing that seems to be forgotten is that our military men and women are not chess pieces to be sacrificed in a global domination game. They are real people, the people who we will depend on for our very lives if something serious does occur. It is a profound betrayal of trust to ever ask them to sacrifice their lives for any purpose other than to save the lives of their countrymen.

So to directly address the points on the strategic issues:

a) Pakistan and India are large nations whose combined population is several times ours. Both are nuclear armed. Their problems with each other are incredibly complex and it is not realistic to think that Americans in Afghanistan are a solution. It is both their right and their responsibility - not ours on either count - to sort out their problems on their own. If other nations are to be involved, Russia, China, and the other bordering nations have a lot more right to influence the situation than we do.

b) With regards to the heroin problem, our presence has made it much much worse. We are effectively protecting and encouraging heroin production in Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

Getting out cannot make the problem worse.

I will add my own points c) and d) here.

c) A force-imposed arrangement lasts only as long as the threat of force is maintained. Once lifted, conditions immediately begin to revert to the previous situation.

d) Money is not free. We have a moral imperative to spend our dwindling resources fixing our own situation rather than trying to play the savior on the far side of the globe. Mature decisions on cost-effectiveness and proper distribution of resources need to be made; the days of spending whatever we want on whatever strikes our fancy are over.

[SandWalker1984]

107. The US's vital interest in Afghanistan is a pipeline for Unocal

Let's Speak the Truth About Afghanistan
By Eric Margolis

Today, 80,000 U.S. and NATO troops are waging war against the Taliban. Having accompanied the mujahidin fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980's, witnessed the birth of Taliban, and penned a book about the Afghan struggle, "War at the Top of the World," I can attest that Taliban is not a terrorist organization as the U.S. and its allies wrongly claim.

Taliban was created in the early 1990's during the chaos and civil war that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviet invaders were driven out. Drawn from Pashtun tribes of southern Afghanistan, who make up half that nation's population, Taliban was a religious movement that took up arms to battle the Afghan Communists, stop the wide-scale rape of Afghan women, and halt banditry and the drug trade. Both Pakistan and the U.S. secretly aided Taliban.

The ranks of Taliban were filled with young religious students -- "talibs" -- and veteran mujahidin fighters whom the U.S. had armed and hailed as "freedom fighters." By 1996, Taliban took Kabul, driving out the Northern Alliance, the old rump of the Afghan Communist Party and its Russian-backed Tajik and Uzbek tribal supporters. Taliban, most of whom were mountaineers, imposed a draconian medievalist culture that followed traditional Pashtun tribal customs and Islamic law.

The U.S. quietly backed Taliban for possible use in Central Asia, against China in the event of war, and against Iran, a bitter foe of the Sunni Taliban. U.S. energy giants Chevron and Unocal negotiated gas and oil pipeline deals with Taliban. In 2001, Washington gave $40 million in aid to Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. only turned against Taliban when, at Osama bin Laden's advice, it gave a major pipeline deal to an Argentine consortium rather than an American one.

Read the rest of the story at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20386.h...

[EFerrari]

19. Afghanistan is like Vietnam, cubed.

"Afghanistan is like Vietnam

Really? Mullah Omar is like Ho Chi Minh? There is a substantial group of people outside the Taliban that are naturally allies like the Viet Cong were to the North Vietnamese?"

Not only is there a substantial group of people outside the Taliban that are natural allies, every substantial group has positioned itself in relation to the Taliban. We're talking about tribalism as an organizing social mechanism. And like Viet Nam, Afghanistan is at the moment a satellite of a more powerful country only in this case, tribalism is an even more significant factor in Pakistan than it was in China.

You can't stabilize Afghanistan when it has no identifiable center of gravity outside of a US imposed corruptocracy. Perhaps the international community could engineer an armed truce and a kind of balance but that society, if it can be called a society when it's so fragmented, cannot be stabilized because there are too many moving parts. You can't help Afghanistan defend itself from itself. No matter how long we are there, there will be chaos at the hand off. People who study insurgencies acknowledge that.

Afghanistan is not Japan or Iraq. There is no real way to occupy it because the organization of the populace is fragmented and the terrain prohibitive. There is no way we can deny territory to Al Qaida, even were Al Qaida still interested in Afghanistan, by an increase of troops. We'd be much further ahead to buy the dominating warlord of each province. But, there's probably not enough money in doing such a simple thing for American defense contractors.

The real progress in Afghanistan, no matter what the President wants to achieve there, will be as a result of haggling, not troop strength, much of that haggling done in Pakistan at that. And that seems to me to be a common sense issue, not a left issue -- even though it originates from the common sense left.

:)

[scarletwoman]

20. I like and respect both you and Grantcart, however, I remain unmoved. Sorry. (nt)

[cliffordu]

49. That's cool - i honestly don't know WHAT the long term solution is.

nixon could not get us out until he let it go on long enough that they got tired enough to discuss withdrawal.

Maybe that has to happen here, too...Stalemate and then some kind of palaver, followed by withdrawal.

I hate bush for doing this with all my heart.

[Hissyspit]

21. My endemically narcissistic self is posting this:

Mostly civilian casualties? Check.
History of failed intervention and occupation? Check.
Prolonged American involvement with little or nothing to show for it? Check.
Deteriorating situation? Check.
Increased drug production and government corruption? Check.
Financial cost to America $2 Trillion over ten years or more? Check.
Military stretched to the limit? Check.
Psychological impact on soldiers and their family members? Check.
More U.S. deaths and injuries? Check.
Resources diverted from major domestic concerns? Check.
Probable failure to achieve even basic goals. Check.
Increase in anti-U.S. sentiment and potential terrorists? Check.
Chickenhawks saying it's all hunky-dory with them? Check.

I appreciate grantcart's take, understand the complexities of the situation, and know plenty about the history of Vietnam.

"The REAL collateral damage?" Wow...

[goclark]

23. K and R and thank you to grantcart

for his insite.

I do appreciate and value his wisdom.

[grantcart]

25. Apologies that I don't have time to respond to those that reply

Travelling this week and only have a brief moment.


I would like to correct one point that Cliffordu has made though. When I went to Vietnam in 1978 there was no danger of any kind, except for clouds of mosquitos and the thousands of bycicles that had over taken the road.

There were some extremely brave American Mennonites who did exhibit considerable courage. They worked at a clinic that made artificial limbs for children. When the North Vietnamese came into Saigon they simply got up and went to work and continued as if nothing had ever happened. They continued to live in Vietnam, the only Americans (besides a few deserters) to do so continuously through liberation, quietly continuing their mission. After a couple of years they were asked to leave and did so handing the clinic to Vietnamese trained to carry on their work.


I googled one of the people I knew 30 years ago and find that he is now living in Hanoi working for the Mennonite Central Committee.

His name is Max Ediger and he had the kind of courage that Cliffordu was talking about and mistakenly ascribed to me: http://peace.mennolink.org/cgi-bin/m.pl?r=20

[Cha]

28. Thanks, grant..and thanks for the

OP. Have a safe trip and I look forward to you posting again.

[OneGrassRoot]

50. Ditto. I have tremendous respect for you, Grantcart....

always have. :)

[ShortnFiery]

30. My brother almost died in 1968 ...

Remember the Tet Offensive? Oh, that's right, you were not there ATT.

[cliffordu]

35. Neither were you.

I was, a little later. so the fuck what?

[cliffordu]

38. That's it ya little fucker.

no more fanboi adulation and tag team tactics for you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. It, like Vietnam, is a war being fought for PR and being "tough".

It's premise is false just like the premise was in Vietnam. LBJ went to war, allegedly and falsely, to prevent the then bogeyman "the Communists" from taking over Asia. But, it was really to show the American voters that he and the Democrats were "tough on Communism".

Bush went to war against Iraq and Afghanistan to show the world, and the American electorate, that he was "tough on terror". The Democrats, sadly, afraid to be accused of being "soft" went along.

And, now Obama is continuing Bush's policies to show that he is "tough" and citing the same reasons that Bush did, and Nixon, and LBJ.

It's a PR stunt gone sour.

We lost. Get out. Get over it.

[ShortnFiery]

32. Yes. Thoughtful and concise. eom

[Swamp Rat]

34. Kill Osama and the Taliban leadership, the Russians can grow their own opium and pull our troops out

NOW!

I agree that Pakistan is a problem, but we need to find other solutions that put our troops out of harms way.

Good read, Cliffordu/Grantcart, but I do not agree that we should stay in Afghanistan, not even for another month if we can help it.

Afghanistan is not a 'country' by Western standards, nor will it ever become one through our military intervention.... unless we spend trillions of dollars, give up the lives of tens of thousands of American troops, and take a few decades. Then, it MIGHT become a stable, democratic country... probably not.

Personally, I'd rather spend the money and human capital on fixing healthcare here in America and rebuilding our infrastructure.

[cliffordu]

37. I completely agree with your first sentence......

Anything beyond that and I'm mostly flummoxed. About what to do, that is, not by your stance on it...,

The whole situation is a clusterfuck to be sure.

[Hekate]

45. Thank you exceedingly for not posting this Monday or Tuesday, when I will be staying away from DU...

Kicked, Recced, and Bookmarked for further thought.

This helps me understand much better the situation as Obama might see it. I really appreciate it.

Hekate

[proteus_lives]

48. Great post, you make a lot of good points.

Your points about Vietnam remind me a lot of what my Dad (A combat Vietnam Vet) has said about the subject.

[AllentownJake]

51. Lesson from Vietnam and of Afghanistan and World War II

1)Don't get involved in other countries civil wars.

2) If you are going to go to war, go to fucking war. The entire nation mobilizes for the war effort. You institute a draft and all sectors of society are involved in the war effort with their own children on the line. A Roosevelt was killed on Normandy, a Kennedy was killed on a bombing mission, and a Bush was almost killed in a fighter plane.

3) Everything the nation has is thrown into the war effort and you invest in rebuilding the conquered nation in your own image after the war is over respecting the cultural history of the nation.

[cliffordu]

52. What Jake said.

Too bad about the Bush near miss.

[AllentownJake]

53. The entire Bush nonsense of not asking for a declaration of war from congress

After 9-11 still infuriates me and it was done with the intent purpose of skirting laws of war in the Geneva convention.

Oh and if we had declared war, every NATO nation would have been obliged to declare war with us, or be in violation of the Treaty.

[Electric Monk]

54. Bookmarking this to read again tomorrow

Can't take it all in right now, but seems important.

[ConsAreLiars]

55. This bit of pro-war agit-prop omits the very obvious facts about the CIA covert

and US overt actions in both countries that led to both being turned into killing fields.

In Vietnam a truce line between the French and the Vietnamese Resistance movement allowed both to set up different governments, which were obligated to prepare for elections regarding reunification of the country. The US elbowed the defeated French aside and put a right wing Catholic exile living in the US in as "president" who obliged his handlers by trashing the reunification elections mandated by the Geneva accords.

The following, from Wiki, about Diem, puts Vietnam into a real context, instead of the often-repeated spin this post is regurgitating, and is also a good illustration of how US Corporate power uses the US state machinery to further extend its control.

Yes, there are all-too-obvious parallels. Look at the longer history of Vietnam, instead of buying that crap that it would be a bloodbath if we stopped slaughtering the Vietnamese and the equivalent arguments about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite the SouthParker's insinuation to the contrary, there was no such result in Vietnam, although a lot of those who collaborated with the invaders fled the country. The real bloodbath occurred in Cambodia, where the US had supported a coup against the neutralist government of Sihanouk, which then got ousted by a fanatic exiled anti-Vietnamese ideologue who promised to return the King but brought only death. Predictably, international condemnation and attempts to put an end to the slaughter were blocked by the US, which remained one of few countries to regard and support the Khmer Rouge as a legitimate government and ally.

Think a bit about Karzai and Afghanistan when you read this old news.


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%C3%B4_%C4%90%C3%ACnh_Di%E1%BB%87m

Diem applied for permission to travel to Rome for the Holy Year celebrations at the Vatican. After gaining French permission he left in August with Thuc, apparently destined to become a politically irrelevant figure. Before going to Europe, Diem went to Japan, where he intended to meet Cuong De to enlist support to seize power. Neither this nor an attempt to woo help from General Douglas MacArthur, the American supreme commander in occupied Japan, yielded meetings. A friend managed to organise a meeting with Wesley Fishel, an American academic who had done consultancy work for the US government. Fishel was a proponent of the anti-colonial, anti-communist third force doctrine in Asia and was impressed with Diem. He helped Diem to organise contacts and meetings in the United States to enlist support.<5> It was an opportune time for Diem, with the outbreak of the Korean War and McCarthyism helping to make Vietnamese anti-communists a sought after commodity in America. Diem was given a reception at the State Department with the Acting Secretary of State James Webb. Possibly intimidated, he gave a weak performance in which Thuc did much of the talking. As a result, no further audiences with notable officials were afforded to him. However, he did meet Cardinal Francis Spellman, regarded as the most politically powerful cleric of his time. Spellman had studied with Thuc in Rome in the 1930s and was to become one of Diem's most powerful advocates. Diem managed an audience with Pope Pius XII in Rome before further lobbying across Europe. Diem also attempted to convince Bảo Đại to make him the Prime Minister of the State of Vietnam but was turned down. Diệm returned to the United States to continue lobbying and in 1951 was able to secure an audience with Secretary of State Dean Acheson. During the next three years he lived at Spellman's Maryknoll seminary in Lakewood Township, New Jersey and occasionally at another seminary in Ossining, New York.<6> Spellman helped Diệm to garner support among right wing and Catholic circles such as Joseph McCarthy. Diem toured the east of America speaking at universities, arguing that Vietnam could only be saved for the "free world" if the US sponsored a government of nationalists who were opposed to both the Vietminh and the French. He was appointed as a consultant to Michigan State University's Government Research Bureau, where Fishel worked. MSU was administering government-sponsored assistance programs for cold war allies, and Diệm helped Fishel to lay the foundation for a program later implemented in South Vietnam, the Michigan State University Vietnam Advisory Group. As French power in Vietnam declined, Diệm's support in America made his stock rise.<7>

With the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 to the Vietminh, French control of Vietnam collapsed and Bảo Đại needed foreign help to sustain his State of Vietnam. Realising Diệm's popularity among American policymakers, he chose Diệm's youngest brother Ngo Dinh Luyen, who was studying in Europe at the time, to be part of his delegation at the 1954 Geneva Conference to determine the future of Indochina. Luyen represented Bảo Đại in his dealings with the Americans, who understood this to be an expression of interest in Diệm. With the backing of the Eisenhower administration, Bảo Đại named Diệm as the Prime Minister. The appointment was widely condemned by French officials, who felt that Diệm was incompetent, with the Prime Minister Mendes-France declaring Diệm to be a "fanatic". The Geneva accords resulted in Vietnam being partitioned temporarily at the 17th parallel, pending elections in 1956 to reunify the country. The Vietminh controlled the north, while the French backed State of Vietnam controlled the south with Diệm as the Prime Minister. French Indochina was to be dissolved at the start of 1955. Diệm's South Vietnamese delegation chose not to sign the accords, refusing to have half the country under communist rule, but the agreement went into effect regardless.<8>

...

Consolidation of power
See also: Operation Passage to Freedom

The accords allowed for freedom of movement between the two zones until October 1954; this was to put a large strain on the south. Diệm had only expected 10,000 refugees, but by August, there were over 200,000 waiting in Hanoi and Haiphong to be evacuated; the migration helped to strengthen Diệm's political base of support. Before the partition, the majority of Vietnam's Catholic population lived in the north. After the borders were sealed, this majority was now under Diệm's rule. The US Navy program Operation Passage to Freedom saw up to one million North Vietnamese move south, most of them Catholic. The CIA's Edward Lansdale, who had been posted to help Diệm strengthen his rule,<10> led a propaganda campaign to encourage as many refugees to move south as possible. This effort was twofold: to strengthen the Catholic population specifically and the population generally to help win the 1956 reunification elections. This included sending South Vietnamese agents into the north to spread rumours of impending doom, such as Chinese invasion and pillaging, hiring soothsayers to predict disaster under communism, and claiming that the Americans would use nuclear weapons on North Vietnam. Diệm also used slogans such as "Christ has gone south" and "the Virgin Mary had departed from the North", alleging anti-Catholic persecution under Ho Chi Minh. Over 60% of northern Catholics moved to Diệm's South Vietnam, providing him with a source of loyal support.

...

Diệm's rule was authoritarian and nepotistic. His most trusted official was his brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Diệm Can Lao political party, who was an opium addict and admirer of Adolf Hitler. He modeled the Can Lao secret police's marching style and torture styles on Nazi designs.<18> Ngô Đình Cẩn, his younger brother, was put in charge of the former Imperial City of Huế. Although neither Cẩn or Nhu held any official role in the government, they ruled their regions of South Vietnam, commanding private armies and secret police. Another brother, Ngô Đình Luyện, was appointed Ambassador to the United Kingdom. His elder brother, Ngô Đình Thục, was the archbishop of Huế. Despite this, Thuc lived in the Presidential Palace, along with Nhu, Nhu's wife and Diệm. Diệm was nationalistic, devout Catholic, anti-Communist, and preferred the philosophies of personalism and Confucianism.<19><20>

Diệm's rule was also pervaded by family corruption. Can was widely believed to be involved in illegal smuggling of rice to North Vietnam on the black market and opium throughout Asia via Laos, as well as monopolising the cinnamon trade, amassing a fortune stored in foreign banks.<21><22> With Nhu, Can competed for U.S. contracts and rice trade.<23> Thuc, the most powerful religious leader in the country, was allowed to solicit "voluntary contributions to the Church" from Saigon businessmen, which was likened to "tax notices".<24> Thuc also used his position to acquire farms, businesses, urban real estate, rental property and rubber plantations for the Catholic Church. He also used Army of the Republic of Vietnam personnel to work on his timber and construction projects. The Nhus amassed a fortune by running numbers and lottery rackets, manipulating currency and extorting money from Saigon businesses. Luyen became a multimillionaire by speculating in piasters and pounds on the currency exchange using inside government information.<25>

[cliffordu]

66. Excellent work....

Comprehensive and solid.

Except for the omission of Uncle Ho and his relationship to the Chinese government. That omission kinda renders your other work moot, No??

It's like a three hour physics lecture on why and how a mule fell into a ditch. The fact is the mule is in the ditch. Getting out is the point and getting out without killing a million people who worked with our forces and aid workers by the people who take over next is the point to the whole OP.

We need to stay just long enough to ensure that most will survive. Then it's on to the next adventure.

[ConsAreLiars]

108. Thank you.

It is surely only a part of the whole, but knowing how we and they (the US and Afghan and Vietnamese people) got shoved in that ditch is an important part. I think that this history should teach us that continuing to rely on war-makers' promises to get us (us-us and them-us) out and reduce suffering cannot be trusted.

Regarding Ho Chi Minh and China, I'm not sure what you are getting at. The relationship was mostly one of conflict and mistrust, based on a long history plus Ho Chi Minh's closer ties to and greater reliance on the USSR for assistance. Before and after Nixon destabilized Cambodia, Vietnam and China were supporting different elements within what was generically called the Khmer Rouge. The China-aligned Pol Pot faction wiped out the Vietnam-aligned forces as a part of their purges.

[Hekate]

56. Cliffordu and Grantcart, this is the kind of informative and intelligent post I used to get from DU

... back when I first came 7 years ago. It has been a pleasure to read and I will be thinking about it for some time to come. Thank you, again.

Hekate

[optimator]

57. the strategic issues are still UNJUST

a. Region instability is not a just, nor constitutional reason for any involvement.
b. neither is drug trafficking.

The rest of the article is invalid when there is no just cause to be there.

PROVE to me there is a physical threat to the USA that requires a preemptive war or I will remain against it.

[Turborama]

58. About 1. 4 "The Afghans never have had a central government and have never left the 15th century."

As I pointed out in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x407431#407462">this thread...

Afghanistan wasn't in the stone age (or 15th Century) when the Russians invaded, even though a lot of people seem to think that's the way it's always been.

These videos show what it was like back in the 1970s:

1976 visit to Afghanistan
Video shot by Dick Marshall on a visit to Afghanistan in 1976. From the Williams Afghan Media Project. (No audio)
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/10/29/aman.afghan.visit.1976.williams

---- --- ----

Once Upon a Time - Afghanistan
Nov 2001

As the future of Afghanistan hangs in the balance, we look back on the country's past and ask where its future lies?

The rugged terrain of Afghanistan has often found itself at the centre of some of the world's major conflicts. The pictures on our television screens show a country virtually destroyed by war. Yet it wasn't always so: film footage from the 1970s paints a very different picture, of an open and modern society. The capital Kabul buzzes with life, its streets filled with cars, bicycles and pedestrians. At this time, Kabul was famed as an exotic stop-off point on the hippy trail between Europe and India. "That was a golden period for the Afghans," reminisces Dr Ahmed Abdul Javid, former Chancellor of Kabul University. Until the Taliban enforced an Islamic year zero in 1996, Afghanistan was a relatively liberal Place. Farah Hawad, a female journalist who left Kabul for Britain in 1994, describes the country's progressive attitude towards women back then: "Afghanistan was the first Asian country that had women in parliament." But even during this so-called golden era, tensions existed between the country's different ethnic factions, which finally ignited after the Soviet defeat. The task of establishing a lasting peace between these various ethnic groups is likely to be a long and complex one. If Afghanistan is finally freed from the foreign intervention that has dogged it for so long, perhaps new kind of society will finally be able to flourish in this ruined land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObKRVQDKMwU

---- --- ----

Before The Dawn: Afghanistan in Peace
Before the Taliban. Before the Soviet Invasion. What was there in Afghanistan? Many people from the West who traveled there described it as a Shangri-La or the land of 1001 nights. Afghanistan in many regions remained the way Alexander The Great witness it. Yet there was a change happening in its main cities. Civilization was in full progress and many people looked up to the West. Modernization was in full progress. While poverty and social problems was inherent, the people lived peacefully in region that has been in turmoil over the last 4000 years. The Soviet Invasion brought Afghanistan in a dawn ward spiral that would last 25 years. Today Afghanistan is so devastated and destroyed that it is hard to believe it was once peaceful and civilized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWaxHhRF0Ts

---- --- ----

Afghanistan - Travel Stories From The 1970's.
Travellers tales from Afghanistan as related in excerpts from the Australian Broadcasting Commision radio history program - "Hindsight" dealing with the 1960's and 1970's Asia overland trail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_greF3tTU

---- --- ----

Also...

If you get a chance to see it, I posted a couple of insightful documentaries http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x408086">here which show what was going on in Afghanistan at the time of the Taliban's resurgence in 2006.

And, if you haven't seen the documentary "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1410061.stm">Beneath the Veil" yet I thoroughly recommend it for an insight into what kind of a hell on earth life was like under the Taliban from 1996 until late 2001. The full documentary is available to watch http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4201322772364661561&ei=zL8MS_a9JJS8wgOVlfykBg&q=beneath+the+veil&hl=en#">here on Google video.

[ConsAreLiars]

60. Thank for bringing a bit of fact into this discussion and for the links.

The typing of Afghans as rabid monsters serves the invader's goals, but is as vile a lie as any told.

I was there in '70 and '71. A lot of my journal recounts the reality we experienced there. As guests, not invaders.

I'll check your links later, but for now let me add this calendar cover as an indication of the direction being taken while the US/CIA was supporting the opposition and importing Islamic fundies and crazies,

[elocs]

59. "Some have appointed themselves "high bishops" of the left

and have made some of the following pronouncements from on high..."

Wow! Hit the nail on the head with that description. DU can be the throne for some sanctimonious, self-righteous, and posturing posters who are heavy on opinion but light on experience. All must bow, yield, and kneel to their superior insights.

[HamdenRice]

63. Great post! Like the old DU. Not sure it's suitable to current DU. I disagree with some of it

but it's so well thought out and obviously based on your real world experience.

[mmonk]

64. I plan to do something on the subject soon though it will differ.

If one could show this surge isn't the beginning of deeper military involvement without a commitment to much else (as Obama has said this isn't nation building which is phrase the right has always used), then maybe I could see this as something different from the empire project, an oil pipeline, and complicated with an unstable ally that helped create this mess.

[bigtree]

65. I'll tell grantcart what Democratic narcissism is

It's the un-supported belief that our invading and occupying forces are any good at effecting any of the fine ideals about protecting Afghans or the prospect of any lasting benefit from the aid and development which is arbitrarily and opportunistically occurring behind the line in the dirt drawn by our advancing forces. Pro-occupation Democrats will tell you that we can't just leave these folks who have been devastated by our military presence and action (both from our assaults and from the resistance to NATO and the US) to fend for themselves in the aftermath of an exit, but it's completely ignored that our very presence and activity has a counterproductive effect of 'fueling' and fostering' even more resistant violence to our advance on their homeland which is in direct proportion to the increase of foreign forces. This notion that our military is helping (more than they are hurting) in Afghanistan is belied by the obvious fact of the U.S. self-interest in prosecuting our opportunistic and nebulous 'war on terror' (albeit under new terminology and phrasing).

Although it's the premier argument of the day, our grudging campaign against the remnants and ghosts of the fugitive 9-11 terror suspects and their accomplices will NEVER be in the 'security' or stability' interests of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq.

[Turborama]

67. Not all of the aid and development is arbitrarily and opportunistically occurring

Unless http://www.sida.se/English/Countries-and-regions/Asia/Afghanistan/Programmes-and-Projects/More-children-in-school-in-Afghanistan/">increasing the amount of kids going to school from <1,000,000 to roughly 6,000,000 and providing 1,500,000 southern Afghans with much needed electricity and irrigation http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5777799&mesg_id=5781231">by repairing and protecting a long dormant massive dam is happening by accident

[cliffordu]

68. Please don't disrupt the party line with what ELSE is taking place there...

People are getting clean water in spots that haven't seen that in a while, too but we never see that posted here....

[bigtree]

71. who isn't for clean water, Cliff?

But that's not the primary mission there. If it was, it probably wouldn't generate so much resistance.

[cliffordu]

72. The mission needs to turn towards clean water and schools and farming.....

And it just might. I'm waiting for Tuesday.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but walking away now is indefensible.

[bigtree]

80. stupid

you certainly are not.

[cliffordu]

99. Right back atcha, Bigtree

:patriot:

[bigtree]

70. they are arbitrary and incidental to the destructive effects of the occupation

. . . including both the resistance and our own opportunistic assaults and territory grabs. We can't defend that ground forever. It's an artificial construction, like most U.S. military bases in hostile territory. Of course the U.S. has the capacity to do good works there, and certainly has, but the counterproductive effects of our presence and activity will always threaten to overshadow those idealistic projects with the added resistance generated ahead of the line we draw in the dirt with our offensive, advancing forces. It's hard to pretend that our grudging interests against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and Afghan security and stability are the same as the casualties increase in proportion with our escalated military presence and activity.

[Turborama]

81. I must have a different definition of arbitrariness and opportunism to the one you meant, then

Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

Opportunism: Taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others.

I'll pick up on the rest of what you've said after President Obama has announced his strategy tomorrow.

[closeupready]

73. Fuck this "collateral damage is relative" bullshit. Corpses are facts. Speculation is not.

Calling the possibility of 1) a dictatorship taking over; 2) cleansing ethnically; etc. is convoluted bullshit and NOT collateral damage in any shape, way or form. :mad:

[kenny blankenship]

74. OMG IF WE LEAVE NOW AFFGANNYSTANS WILL BE A HELL HOLE!1111

[cliffordu]

77. What are you trying to say??

[H2O Man]

75. Recommended.

This is representative of the very best of DU. Thanks for posting it for us. It should be required reading!

[redqueen]

76. K&R

Thanks for posting this here, cliffordu (and thanks to grantcart for the rant).

[cliffordu]

78. He did all the work, All I did was cut'n paste over from the Obama forum.

And, of course, take all the credit.

[hfojvt]

79. what a breath of fresh air it is to have reason and information and balance

too bad the Bishops will excommunicate you both

[cliffordu]

82. Fuck them and the purity test they rode in on.

[hfojvt]

85. tut tut, we have lots of common ground with those bishops

and their passion is sorta commendable as is their cause.

[cliffordu]

88. Yep - but it's the complete lack of flexibility in viewpoint that annoys.

Concrete thinking and all it entails.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. Major detail left out

Cambodia was peaceful and neutral until the U.S. bombed it and destabilized it to prevent Viet Cong from passing through.

[cliffordu]

89. Hmm.....I don't think your posit has validity, but I could be wrong. I'll look it up.

[jasi2006]

94. On the other hand, if we stay and increase our numbers

the outcomes will likely be the same only more American soldiers will be killed. Vodka destroyed Russia before heroine. The addiction of the masses will overcome any military strategy we come up with. Without a real economy, food production, and adequate water supplies the situation can only get worse...just like here in the US. Face it we are all marking time..

[Robb]

84. "Must read," eh?

I have to say that phrase gets tossed around here an awful lot.

Never in 8 years have I agreed with anyone who said a thread is a "must read."

This is absolutely a must-read piece. Thanks.

[cliffordu]

90. Thank that nebulously verbose grantcart. All I did was copy and paste over from

the Obama forum, cause he's to lazy to do it.

[redqueen]

86. Kick

:kick:

[bvar22]

87. How much longer must we stay....

...before there will NOT be an "aftermath".

If we had stayed in Viet Nam for another 10 years, would there have been an "aftermath".

Logically, you are arguing FOR a permanent hostile occupation.

[cliffordu]

91. Sorry, bogus posit NOT supported by the facts.

And I do NOT support open ended occupation.

[bvar22]

95. No. Your position is not supported by facts.

Somehow, if we escalate the occupation, there will magically be no "aftermath" when we leave?

How much Nation building do you advocate we do to stop the factions from fighting amongst themselves when we leave?

Will things be any better 5 years from now?

....10 Years?

[cliffordu]

97. Your position supposes garbage not supported by facts.

You imply that he is simply escalating THE COMBAT TROOP LEVEL.

Nothing about troops that will handle rebuilding SOME of the infrastructure, training of their military, rehabbing the drug crops to something less deadly and profitable to the drug lords and the Taliban......

Your position doesn't take into account that those tribal leaders got along just fucking fine until about 1973 or 74........go look it up -

And that's a nice try with the 'nation building' repub insult. Fail.

A little nation building might not be a bad thing. Better that than the status quo we met when that fucking Bush went in, and it might even repair some of the damage that 8 years of neglect and war has spawned. Maybe not but I think it's worth the effort.

Nobody can guarantee there won't be retribution of some sort after we leave, you cannot even guarantee there won't be retribution in my neighborhood if the cops are called.

We can attempt to avert slaughter, though. As that dupe of a general Powell said..."You break it you buy it..." and we broke the living hell out of it. did


Or we could simply walk away because 'it won't do any good' and 'they are savages and live in the 13th century' or what ever excuse you seem to see fit.

And let the slaughter we KNOW will happen at THIS stage, take off.

I think your stance against the war is admirable, but your reasoning and tactics are small at best and bogus at worst.

[NYC_SKP]

101. Actually, I think these people are just upset that they failed grantcart's quiz at the end.

which I aced.

Seriously great post.

:kick:

[cliffordu]

102. Which is why I told him REPEATEDLY to repost it here from over at the Obama

forum.....

The lazy bastid didn't 'have the time' but suggested I do it. Now all these losers are mad at ME for a little suggestion concerning nation building..

Fuckers.

Grantcart for getting me into this and everyone who disagrees with me are fuckers plain and simple.

[NYC_SKP]

104. LOL!!!!

He asked me, too, and I told him, no fucking way, cliffordu will probably do it if you hound him enough.

:rofl:

[cliffordu]

110. All Y'all are haters. Plain and simple.

:rofl:

[kenny blankenship]

92. Stay?? Hell NO We have to go BACK to Vietnam and do it right !

They didn't learn to love us. They never learned to appreciate all we done for 'em. By GOD they'll learn, or die trying.

[cliffordu]

98. That's funny!!

Of course they killed about a million people right after we left, but they never get talked about, do they.

I wonder how many vietnamese I knew well were slaughtered after we left.

They don't matter to the "Leave now at any cost" crowd, because their self interest and self righteousness aren't going to be bothered by THAT kind of collateral damage.

Your comedy is pretty funny, kenny. More like Cartman, though.

[TwilightGardener]

93. Rec--well-reasoned and informative. Thanks for posting it.

[alarimer]

96. It is not our responsibility to fix Afghanistan

It never was. It is a mistake and a costly failure to even try.

There is NO REASON for us to be there. NONE.

We cannot fix it.

[NYC_SKP]

100. Kicking for grantcart. One of the few here with real perspective.

Nice work cliffordu, and fun to see some of the *'s respond.

:P

[cliffordu]

103. It is, ain't it???

:rofl:

That fucking grantcart is smarter than he looks, that's for fucking sure.

[NYC_SKP]

105. Funny part is, IF any of them had read the whole thing, their knowledge would have risen tenfold.

but then we know they didn't and so remain "in bliss"...

:P

[ShamelessHussy]

106. The Vietnam Analogy is Very apt

unwinnable quagmire.

thanks for sharing :toast: