Is the War in Afghanistan About Retribution or Prevention?

[tekisui]

Setting aside the nation building aspect of the US role in Afghanistan, what is the war about?

When we seek to destroy al-qaeda and the extremist elements of the Taliban, is the objective retaliation and punishment or is the objective prevention?

Are we seeking to 'justice through war' or are we pre-empting potential future attacks?

[SIMPLYB1980]

1. Justice. nt

[tekisui]

5. How many actual participants in the terrorists attacks are still

in the region?

How many do we have to kill or capture? All of them?

How will we know when the revenge and punishment is sufficient?

[SIMPLYB1980]

7. LOL!

:rofl:

[tekisui]

9. As usual, you have no idea how to respond.

You got nuthin.

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. See your other OP.

:popcorn:

[tekisui]

17. At least you are consistent in showing your ass.

[SIMPLYB1980]

18. As are you.

:popcorn:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

26. Given the number of terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan

I'd say "quite a few", though really, our goal isn't to capture and kill all of them. Like with Iraq, our goal is to splinter the Taliban movement, bring the more moderate elements of it into the fold and isolate/pick off the rest.

When will we know its sufficient? When attacks decrease dramatically.

[Bonn1997]

2. The war on terrorism is mostly about retribution

[Echo In Light]

3. Neither

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Pipelines.

[bdamomma]

8. that priority is high on the list.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Right now. PR and CYA.

[kctim]

10. Both

You retaliate to punish the action and to prevent further such actions.

[Dogtown]

11. It is merely cover.

A pretense to draw attention away from the Neocon's real objective, Iraq. There was no other interest or intent.

[TheWraith]

12. At this point, neither. It's about cleanup.

We broke the place, now we have to fix as much of that as possible and hope they can hold the rest together while we get out.

[tekisui]

16. Why are we abandoning Iraq?

If that argument holds, why are we leaving Iraq, it is still quite broken.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

25. Is it? Clearly they have some issues that need to be hammered out

particularly with regard to the upcoming election, but overall, Iraq has stabilized quite nicely. Nice to see that many of the reports on our troops stationed there focus on how bored they are these days.

[FarCenter]

13. It is mostly about politics and power within the United States

Originally about oil (big time) and retribution (not so much).

[TheWraith]

14. Afghanistan... has... no... oil. nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

24. Exactly!!

[FarCenter]

27. Central Asia has oil -- Afghanistan is in the way of the pipelines to get it to the Indian Ocean

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

29. Yes, and...?

[FarCenter]

31. Pipelines across Afghanistan are not such a high priority right now

Turns out that Central Asia may not have so much oil and gas as once thought.

It is cheaper to pipe it directly from Central Asia to China.

Some of it is piped west through the Caspian and via Caucasus and Turkey to the Mediterranean.

Anglo-American oil companies have lost a good deal of their remaining clout in the last decade. Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, BT and Shell are not what they once were.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Prevention, pipelines and Pakistan.

[Sinti]

20. From what I heard the president say

at this time, it's about getting into Pakistan. They could protect the nukes with a few guards and a lot of technology, so I don't buy that part. Why would you use the least effective, and most inefficient means of doing a job? If it's that dangerous to have nukes, because their friends in ISI aren't to be trusted, why don't they dismantle the program?

Dave Kilcullen has a book (The Accidental Guerrilla) and web site (Small Wars Journal) that talks about the planning and execution of The Long War ™ . He is a consultant to our military, and it definitely looks like they're following his plans, if not to the letter.

He says:

“When it comes to dealing with Islamism, containment rather than transformation should provide the cornerstone of U.S. (and Western) strategy.”
**snip**
the book also analyses five other conflicts at some length (West Java, East Timor, Pakistan, Southern Thailand and radicalization in Europe)

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/03/accidental-guerrilla-read-befo/

Containment rather than transformation - so they'd rather leave them radical and contain them, rather than go all out and actually do something to stop the spread of radicalism? Am I crazy or reading that wrong? These radicals were originally programmed by "state-funded" schools and other propaganda/programming methodologies probably gotten from us. I guess Mind War is only good when it disempowers people and makes them crazy, not so much when it's about returning them to sanity and empowering them. This thing is so deeply convoluted and mad, I feel I need a lobotomy just to be able to accept the current reality. Then again, war is nothing if not collective madness.

FWIW, you might want to look also at our military positions and think like a motivated general.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

23. I really don't think the U.S. has any desire to get into Pakistan anymore than it already is

Instead what Obama is seeking to accomplish is to back up the Pakistani offensives with forces on the Afghan side of the border - which is only logical, when you think about it. Right now, when the Pakistani military launches an offensive, the militants simply slide into Afghanistan where they're less likely to be destroyed. It's a big game of cat and mouse that would go on forever if we didn't change the way we're doing things.

[Sinti]

28. There is zero logic to this from my point of view

'The militants' could gain no foothold if it were not in the interests of the people on the ground to allow them to do so. Weapons supplies could easily be cut off from them and they could be dealt with in that fashion - while protecting their nukes with our technology and a few well-trained soldiers. No one sends over 100,000+ troops to get a few militants that are hiding out. Think about this 70,000 can't get them what good is 100,000 going to do?

I can accept that he was given no good alternatives (from my perspective) but to say we have no desire to go in there is at best awfully naive. I wasn't born yesterday.

You can choose to believe what you are told, and accept their answer to the problem. That does not mean other people should be expected to do so. If you are right, I will accept that I was wrong and apologize. I will probably still believe it could have been done better, and extremely differently.

If you are wrong, will you be willing to do the same?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

30. No invasion of Pakistan on the table.

It's not just "a few militants" though, is it? I mean, most estimates put the figure around 25,000 fighters who remain fairly well funded, decently armed, and who have the advantage in terms of terrain.

Secondly, while it's clear there is some support of the Taliban amongst the people, how much is really a matter for debate. In the North (of Afghanistan), they have virtually no support, and the villagers themselves have risen to drive them out. In the South, it's trickier, because many of the villagers do not feel they have the means to resist (we disarmed many of them). So let's not overestimate the appeal of the Taliban to your average Afghan citizen.

Third, will I apologize if sending more troops, attempting to splinter the Taliban, and doing greater outreach to tribal leaders doesn't work? No, because at this point, it's necessary to try. Will I apologize if the U.S. actually launches a full scale invasion of Pakistan? Sure, but it isn't going to happen.

[Sinti]

32. "fairly well funded" - this is a big issue in my opinion

I think this could be, should be and is not being dealt with sufficiently or properly, IMO. Where does this money come from? How much are we really doing to stop the flow of money and arms? We do not have a good track record of using this tool to prevent war. There is no question that they could be stopped quickly, and bloodlessly, if this money was effectively tracked and stopped. Apparently, the whole world thinks these guys are dangerous to them, so there should be very little push-back on that sort of thing.

There would only be support for the Taliban among the people in Afghanistan, if they felt the Taliban was more fair to them than the current condition. People are people, they want to be able to raise their children in peace.

As far as the Taliban itself goes, I think we can all agree that their hostility toward "other" generally is based on ignorance. Why aren't we getting to the root of this madness? You can only fight ignorance with knowledge. You teach and comfort, and allow them to see the world as less hostile toward them, which will make them less hostile. You can't kill ignorance with a gun.

Both aggression and willingness to submit to authority come from fear. People usually follow hostile gods, because they fear them - fear is greater than common sense. It literally releases chemicals into your brain that cause you to not think clearly. What are we doing in this arena? Certainly, our soldiers marching through bombed out villages is not making people less fearful. I just don't believe that - from what I've read the Afghan people do not want a troop surge, the government there does. I think we'd be better off increasing food aid packages and such to them, it would dramatically decrease the Taliban's ability to recruit. The US Army used to carry chocolate bars for just this purpose.

All my life I've heard this nonsense - "When there are no more people who think like that, then we'll have peace." It was exactly this way in the Cold War. It was exactly this way when Reagan and Bush made a blood bath in Latin America. Now, we've got these new so-called 'savages' that are intractable and cannot be educated, let's kill them! No, it's too expensive! Okay, let's kill them until they prove they can govern themselves!! OKAY!! I'm sorry, I find the war tool to be generally ridiculous for what it claims it's doing.

People will always think differently, that is what makes them interesting. If they are lacking in information, you give it to them. If they are hostile toward you, you show them they have no reason to be. How do we ever get beyond the playground if we can't find ways to handle this?

I do not expect a full-scale invasion of Pakistan, that would be foolish. Pakistan is currently our ally, why would that happen? I expect there will be a moderated movement of our soldiers into the country as Afghanistan is pacified.

Then where will the terrorists be?

[truth2power]

21. Control of energy (Oil & Gas) reserves. n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

22. I think the most accurate answer is "both"

[C_Lawyer09]

33. The strategy is preemptive

Disallowing reconsolidation and organization, working to strengthen the Pakistani security stucture, and provide security for Pakistani nuclear weapons.

[TexasObserver]

34. It's about war profiteering, ignorance and cowardice.

War profiteers push it. The ignorant support it. Those who know better, but go along because they're afraid to push back (I'm looking at you, Mr. President), accept it because they're too cowardly to say "this is a stupid war we don't need to fight."