George Will: pull out of Afghanistan

[MikeWaters]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083102912.html

It's really shocking to hear the dismal predictions by people re: this ignored war. You have military leaders saying things like "it's not hopeless yet."

And then you have a President who is essentially ignoring the war, putting it on cruise control, and not engaging the American people and Congress on what his strategy is.

Then you have this buffoon Karzai.

What a mess.

When both hard-core liberals and influential conservatives like Will are agitating for a pullout, you know it is FUBAR.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083102912.html

It's really shocking to hear the dismal predictions by people re: this ignored war. You have military leaders saying things like "it's not hopeless yet."

And then you have a President who is essentially ignoring the war, putting it on cruise control, and not engaging the American people and Congress on what his strategy is.

Then you have this buffoon Karzai.

What a mess.

When both hard-core liberals and influential conservatives like Will are agitating for a pullout, you know it is FUBAR.

This is one we should won. We had every reason to win and yet we lose it.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is one we should won. We had every reason to win and yet we lose it.

meaning what? if the resources had been expended there in the first place?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is one we should won. We had every reason to win and yet we lose it.

Because Iraq was the only war Bush really cared about, he let Afghanistan go to hell. Now it's probably to late to salvage anything there.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

meaning what? if the resources had been expended there in the first place?

Afghanistan was a very successful operation before the Iraq war. The taliban was nearly dead there. Then Bush moved everything to Iraq. Now the taliban is close to taking over the entire country again and has time on its side.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

meaning what? if the resources had been expended there in the first place?

I f we had not fought Iraq, kept the pressure up and ensured the peace through collective nation building, it had a good chance of success. We diverted too many resources to Iraq, which was always going to be a mess.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I f we had not fought Iraq, kept the pressure up and ensured the peace through collective nation building, it had a good chance of success. We diverted too many resources to Iraq, which was always going to be a mess.

right. I dare say now, in retrospect, many would agree. I wish this view had been more predominant back in 2002-03. It still boggles the mind a bit that so many were seduced into the idea that invading Iraq was so important. At the time, what bothered me most was that we were choosing a pre-emptive war over a retaliatory one. That still matters to me, and I remain bothered that we took on a Iraq for those reasons (totally apart from the fact that the evidence for the pre-emptive war was wrong). I wish I'd heard more of the practical reasoning you state now back then.

[MikeWaters]

It's one thing to nation build in a place like Iraq, that has modern educated people.

It's another thing to nation build with a bunch of Asian steppe hillbillies. That was probably always a losing proposition. You can't nation build in Afghanistan unless you have a time machine that can fast-forward their cultural development by 200 years.

The fact is, they are culturally closer to the Taliban that the West. American culture might as well be an alien civilization.

You really can't win when there are no goals, or unachievable goals. Putting the heat on the Taliban and Al Qaeda is doable. Eliminating the Taliban, not so much.

[Snowcat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's one thing to nation build in a place like Iraq, that has modern educated people.

It's another thing to nation build with a bunch of Asian steppe hillbillies. That was probably always a losing proposition. You can't nation build in Afghanistan unless you have a time machine that can fast-forward their cultural development by 200 years.

The fact is, they are culturally closer to the Taliban that the West. American culture might as well be an alien civilization.

You really can't win when there are no goals, or unachievable goals. Putting the heat on the Taliban and Al Qaeda is doable. Eliminating the Taliban, not so much.

This is the problem. What is the goal for Afghanistan? I think people are getting nervous on both the left and the right because they see the commitment and the cost (in lives) increasing with no clear path to a defined end game.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Snowcat

This is the problem. What is the goal for Afghanistan? I think people are getting nervous on both the left and the right because they see the commitment and the cost (in lives) increasing with no clear path to a defined end game.

Juan Cole was warning of the Afghanistan quagmire back at the end of 2008. He was saying that Obama should watch out. This was well before most people were talking about how bad it is, though certainly there were signs.

Juan Cole knows more about Iran/Iraq/Palestine/Afghanistan in one of his mole hairs than the rest of us know in our entire ugly bodies.

Obama is squandering his political capital on healthcare reform, and I'm not sure what he's going to do to rally the troops.

Certainly the right might turn against the war, solely because a democrat is running it. Look at the former Yugoslavia and Clinton.

And then when the left is doing the same, and the center is really weak, I'm not sure where that leaves Obama.