Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

I'm perfectly aware that Pakistan is almost as factionalized as Afghanistan.  The important facts are that the ISI has nearly as much pull over the country as the military, if not more given its relationship with many of the generals, definitely has access to the nuclear armament, has shown that it doesn't really give a crap what happens to the rest of the country, and are the guys actually dealing with the Taliban.

Will has nothing to do with it.  I don't want to consign anybody anywhere, but the ISI is willing to do exactly that, and they're capable of doing it regardless of whether or not America spends thousands of lives and billions of dollars on their border.  At some point, we have to step back and ask, is it worth it?  Are we achieving anything?

[Phmcw]

I agree with redking on this one, beside Pakistan have a society based on clans.
There will be clan more or less loyal to the Taliban, you just have to find who is who (and that's the whole problem).

But I don't think we can achieve anything in the area by keeping the same strategy.

Edit : Weird your message didn't show when I posted.
I understand your position and my original post is pretty much irrelevant now.
I still have trouble with abandoning Afganistan to the Taliban, but it's true that we achieve nothing (and the cost of the war is killing your economy)

[Zangi]

Unlike Nam, we got people who'll come over the ocean and blow themselves up after we leave Gan.

[ChairmanPoo]

Ah, the old Bush rationale about how starting wars elsewhere prevents terrorists from going to the US. I can't fathom why anyone finds this idea of sending soldiers around as decoys as rational. Or appealing.

[Jackrabbit]

Here's another link that nicely displays many of the incidents in some sort of meaningful way.

So one of those incidents is "Air strike called in by Marines kills seven children" and is labeled other, not civilian casualties. Probably just a mistake, but if you're feeling in the mood for a conspiracy you could probably raise a huge stink about it being intentional.

And that it was planned by the Illuminati.

Okay yeah it's just an interesting mistake I felt the urge to point out.

America's two options on the table are 1) stay in Afghanistan or 2) leave Afghanistan.  Option 1 supposedly contains the Taliban until Afghanistan can stand on it's own and Pakistan can hold off their own side of the "insurgency".  All three of those goals quite demonstrably have as much to do with strategic reality as Candyland; the first is not working, the second is a joke, the third is the exact opposite of what's happening.  Option 2 supposedly entails a Cambodia-style bloodbath, followed by a reconstituted Taliban storming Pakistan and taking its nukes or some shit.  The ISI is banking on America eventually choosing this option, because they expect America won't station a 100,000 man garrison in Afghanistan until the end of time, which is the core logic of Option 1.  And lo and behold, they're now on working terms with the nascent Taliban, as Afghanistan slides back into anarchy despite the US military's presence.  (Banking on Afghan militants blew up in the ISI's face in the 70's and 90's when they tried that before, but current facts are current facts.)

So, that's where we stand.  The heavy American presence in Afghanistan is not accomplishing any military objective of note no matter the numbers, is fueling the systemic corruption of the Afghan government while the Afghan military fails to materialize, is not weakening the Taliban in any meaningful sense, and is funneling money through Pakistan into the very enemy it's supposed to be fighting, strengthening that relationship in the process.  Leaving Afghanistan, by the common wisdom, would cause a range of internal violence and discord that's happening already in spite of the continued presence, or would lead to a Taliban-vs-Pakistan fight that by all present accounts, is the exact opposite of the working relationship that we are giving them cause to have.  If anything, us leaving would cause them to turn against each other, which might actually be the better option, instead of them starting to like each other.

With all that in mind, why the fuck are we still doing this?  Is it going to take another nine years before America can finally take its dick out its hand and admit we screwed up the hunt for bin-Laden (remember him?), and everything since was doomed to failure from the start?

This power of yours, to make the logical seem reasonable. It's impressive.

[PTTG??]

@Zangi:
Yeah, let's see how this works.
 
Step 1: There are people who hate us in a foreign country.
Step 2: Find out what country that is. (optional)
Step 3: Invade that country and bomb civilian homes, arrest random people and send them to turkish and cuban prisons, and play rap music really loud all night.
Step 4: Ensure that a new generation of foreign US-haters are raised (allow about a decade of occupation).
Step 5: ???
Step 6: National Security!
 
 
But yeah, now that we're there, we most likely will see large, roving bands of US-hating iraqies and Afgans. Can't say I blame them.

[Zangi]

@PTTG:

I'm referring to leaving, not starting.  It should never have started to begin with.

Tis the reason why 'we' are still there.  Trying to squash 'the enemy' who will send other people over the ocean to blow themselves up over 'here'.

[ChairmanPoo]

That effort would be best invested in better intelligence than in this mess.

"never get involved in a land war in Asia"

[Huesoo]

Generation Kill is on, going to watch it.

[Jreengus]

That effort would be best invested in better intelligence than in this mess.

Never mess with a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!

Could have been worse we could have got involved in a land war in Asia.

[Phmcw]

From the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction : Weaknesses in DoD's financial and management controls left it unable to properly account for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion in DFI funds it received for reconstruction activities in Iraq. This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds. The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss.

Now please tell me he is kidding. Right?

[Eugenitor]

I wish I could make billions of dollars disappear.

[Zangi]

95% of a few billion unaccounted for? 

Yea... our tax dollars at work during an economic recession.  Outstanding work, 'you' are credit to team.

[Aqizzar]

Reminds me of back in 2007 or whenever it was: A C-130 was carrying a load of nothing but $100 bills, shrinkwrapped on pallets.  The shipment landed, and didn't make it off the tarmac before going unaccounted for.  I don't know what ninety tons of Benjamins translates too, but that's a lot of money to lose in one go.

Which says nothing about the guys in the original post-war reconstruction office signing million dollar bonuses to themselves while ferrying release forms between offices.

[Phmcw]

Knowing that everyone in Iraq hate us, I wouldn't be surprised that a fair part of it has fallen into the hand of the insurrection.
But hey  guess the most important thing to do now is to arrest the source of he leak, because that is the main threat for our troop and our country.

Americans, remember that only you can really do something for this guy.