Afghanistan

[regular.joe]

If I understand this correctly, to leave Afghanistan before some kind of country stabilizing victory, would only give fire to and embolden our Fundamental Islamic enemies. When speaking about countries where the people with the most get up and go are the insurgents and U.S. Soldiers, I personally laugh at the term "exit strategy". The Taliban definitely has an entrance strategy, all Americans want is an exit strategy. Hmmm......I wonder who will win this one in the long run?

If we want to hold on to Afghanistan, Iraq, even the Balkans; we better gear up to stay. If we can't stomach that, we better be ready for the consequences of letting those insurgents, trouble makers and Islamists where ever they are listen to us whine and talk about exit strategies. Those guys now understand they will definitely be there longer then we will. So do the people sitting on what ever fence they sit on who live in those countries.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

If I understand this correctly, to leave Afghanistan before some kind of country stabilizing victory, would only give fire to and embolden our Fundamental Islamic enemies. When speaking about countries where the people with the most get up and go are the insurgents and U.S. Soldiers, I personally laugh at the term "exit strategy". The Taliban definitely has an entrance strategy, all Americans want is an exit strategy. Hmmm......I wonder who will win this one in the long run?

I disagree. I think Afghanistan is merely a strategic move for long term goals in the region. If we gave up Afghanistan, we would give up leverage in the area versus China, India, Iran, and Russia. It would be like giving up the knight holding the center board in a chess match. It also wouldn't be to far fetched to suggest that Pakistan is the main goal here.

Terrorism and freedom is just the excuse to go there. There are places with just as much terror and lack of freedoms yet we are not doing anything there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostra...n_Central_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan_%28Pakistan%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPI_pipeline
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/afpak

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Terrorism and freedom is just the excuse to go there.{Pakistan}

There are places with just as much terror and lack of freedoms yet we are not doing anything there.

How would you know those 2 things?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How would you know those 2 things?

I don't know those two things but I can still analyze a situation and come up with conclusions. It doesn't mean they are right, but what I support. I'm not going to write I think or IMO every time I make a statement.

But here is a basic analysis on the situation.

Facts about this scenario:
1) The US is not a moral state, but one that acts out on its self-interests. Every legitimate nation does this.
2) Shortage of resources will be a problem for the entire world in this century.
3) The US is not self-sustainable and will not be in the next century.
4) Afghanistan is in the middle of a highly strategic location, especially with regards to resources. Central Asia and Balochistan are two places with much economic potential.
5) Historically, Afghanistan is an extremely difficult if not impossible place for foreign occupiers to hold.
6) Current Islamic terrorism is an ideology that feeds on foreign occupation.

While our current method of combating anti-western terrorism does have its strategic benefits, I do not believe it is worth the effort we are putting in to it right now. Although, I believe that resources are going to be a very large problem in the next century and without proper strategic locations, it will be very difficult competing with the upcoming powers in Asia. So, by getting a hold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we will have an edge over China, Russia, Iran, and India that we would not have without holding those nations.

If this is true, being upfront about it would have devastating effects on the US. It would basically be saying that we are killing thousands of people to exploit foreign resources while not do anything to be self-sufficient. It may be the best realistic solution according to greater US interests, but many US citizens will not see it that way. So, by making a lesser issue, giving Afghanistan freedoms and ridding of anti-western terrorist groups, a bigger one, it will be less likely to be criticized.


I just want to make it clear that I do not fully reject the possibility that we are in Afghanistan for the reasons given to us by Bush and Obama. I do think they are issues and we are legitimately working towards them but I do not think they are the biggest issue. It would also be a two birds with one stone scenario so its likely both issues are being worked at. I just believe that the resources issue will take priority over the freedom and terrorism issue.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I don't know those two things but I can still analyze a situation and come up with conclusions. It doesn't mean they are right, but what I support. I'm not going to write I think or IMO every time I make a statement.

Ok. I think you have over analyzed it. But thanks for responding.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ok. I think you have over analyzed it. But thanks for responding.

That may be true, there are other fully legitimate reasons for us being there, but if it isn't now, I still believe it will be an issue in the future.

For those who are interested, an article stating four reasons why the US should stay in Afghanistan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...orth_the_fight