But there is a real and strong middle option: to put ourselves and
friendly Afghans in a position to manage future terrorist threats in that
country without a major U.S. combat role. We can accomplish this by doing what
we actually know how to do: arm, train, divide the enemy, contain and deter.
why does it all have to be so complicated? i don't understand how everyone can hate each other, and it's hard to get along. i know it sounds like a dream to expect more, but it is not impossible.
this is a great idea, but will it truely work? i realize we are trying so hard to make afghanistan a better country, but i, personally, haven't seen any difference.
There are four main prescriptions for a more realistic strategy in Afghanistan.
First, stop trying to do the impossible, i.e., build an effective government in
Kabul and enlarge Afghan security forces.
Second, divide and rent the Taliban. Like the British, we can propose deals that
split the moderates (those content with exerting power in Afghanistan alone)
from the fanatics (those obsessed with global jihad).
These actions can be in place within one to two years and allow the U.S. to be
mostly withdrawn from combat within three.
Fourth, start doing what the U.S. does well — deterrence and containment. To
deter, we must maintain a small, residual capability in Afghanistan for a few
years, as well as offshore air and missile capabilities to inflict harsh
punishment when necessary.
Third, surge about 10,000 new combat forces on top of the 68,000 already
authorized and create an additional 5,000 dedicated trainers. Such a surge
should be sufficient to handle immediate troubles.
The U.S. has never won a classic civil war or a fight against an insurgency in
which it bore the brunt of battle and became the local villain. Vietnam is the
obvious example. For the sake of friendly Afghans and for our own security, our
goal now should be to make this their war, not our war.
We should instead focus on forging a smaller army, say 75,000 or 100,000, that
can and will actually fight, and concentrate on arming and training local
warlords and tribal leaders who can defend themselves. This, backed by good U.S.
logistics and intelligence, could block a Taliban reconquest of Afghanistan.
I completely agree with this theory for a smaller army is a much better option in my opinion
These actions can be in place within one to two years and allow the U.S. to be
mostly withdrawn from combat within three.
Perhaps most fundamental, the middle way avoids the quicksand on which the
counterinsurgency strategy is built: the absolute need for nation-building.
Counterinsurgency strategy requires clearing and holding territory, which cannot
be done without transforming a corruption-riddled, anarchic and poverty-stricken
state into a functioning market democracy.
But there is a real and strong middle option: to put ourselves and
friendly Afghans in a position to manage future terrorist threats in that
country without a major U.S. combat role. We can accomplish this by doing what
we actually know how to do: arm, train, divide the enemy, contain and deter.
We can accomplish this by doing what we actually know how to do: arm, train,
divide the enemy, contain and deter.
We can accomplish this by doing what we actually know how to do: arm, train,
divide the enemy, contain and deter.
It seems like both all-outers and middle-grounders of the war in Afghanistan want to do just that, but they have different methods of doing so.
Second, divide and rent the Taliban. Like the British, we can propose deals that
split the moderates (those content with exerting power in Afghanistan alone)
from the fanatics (those obsessed with global jihad). We can also attract
Taliban fighters by paying them more than the Taliban leadership can afford.
Why would we even consider paying someone who hates us? Chances are they'll just use it against us anyways.
Second, divide and rent the Taliban. Like the British, we can propose deals that
split the moderates (those content with exerting power in Afghanistan alone)
from the fanatics (those obsessed with global jihad). We can also attract
Taliban fighters by paying them more than the Taliban leadership can afford.
Why are we paying a group of people that want us dead? I'm thinking they'd take the money and turn against us again. No matter what they hate America and no amount of money is going to change their minds away from their jihad.
The idea of trying to rebuild with their country and stabilizing the country is the best idea for them. I think its not right for some people to say that they are to violent in Afghanistan to even bother with trying to help them.
The all-out strategy calls for an additional 40,000
Maria Torrado is poor, and has been for much of her life. Pregnant at 14. Motherhood at 15. The native of Puerto Rico dropped out of high school and started working, one low-paying job after another, sometimes for as little as $4 an hour.
The war in Afghanistan is at a crossroads. President Obama will soon decide whether to commit more U.S. troops to a conflict that's already on the verge of becoming the longest military action in American history--or perhaps begin to dial back our commitment there. It's been more than eight years since the war began, and for much of that time, it was a conflict that took place at the margins of our awareness.
For Democrat Barry Grossman, the contest represents a chance to win a high-profile political race -- something Grossman was unable to do in 2005 when he lost the Democratic primary for Erie mayor to Joe Sinnott.
For Republican Mike Kerner, a Nov. 3 municipal election victory would validate his small-money, shoe-leather campaign.
Some helping to shape the strategy support counterinsurgency, which would
involve a large number of troops focused on fighting the Taliban, plus efforts
to rebuild the country and its economic system. Others, such as Vice President
Joe Biden, favor a counterterrorism strategy in which a limited number of troops
would target only al Qaeda.
I think that in order to defeat al Qaeda like Joe Biden mentioned, it will prove neccessary to fight the Taliban and improve Afghanistan's central government and economy as well.
I don't think Biden realizes that we were trying to do that but they diguise themselves as civilians which makes it harder to find them. The terrain is so bad that we have to go in and look everywhere to find them because they can be anywhere.
Some critics have said the White House is playing politics with the decision and
putting U.S. troops at risk
It is important to put political parties aside so the government can focus on the best strategy in Afghanistan, no matter if it is Republican or Democrat.
The White House needs to put political differences aside and really focus on finding the best strategy. As General McChrystal said, the time will eventually come when the U.S. will either fail in Afghanistan or pull the troops out, so the Obama administration needs to act quickly and efficiently in reaching an appropriate decision
This probably wasn't needed to restrain a 10-yearold girl at all. So i do think that this was a misuse of force. If the police officer really knew what he was doing wouldnt need to taser a ten year old girl because she was kicking and screaming.
Our troops need to get out of afghanistan. American blood should not be shed over there.
August had the most fatalities this year for civilians in Afghanistan because
of the country's disputed election, and violence could rise again when the final
results are released, a U.N. report warns.
If civilians are killing due to an invalid election, something is completely wrong in society. That's not right at all! If this were to happen in the U.S, I feel as if no one would kill over it. All I want to say to them is to grow up.
About 1,500 people died in Afghanistan from the beginning of the year to August,
according to the U.N. report released this week.
This is insane. I feel horrible for all the families, and I am so lucky I don't have to deal with the same pain they received. If I was them, I would be so resentful of the war.
Almost 70 percent of the civilian deaths this year were blamed on what the
report called anti-government elements. More than 20 percent of the civilian
deaths were attributed to pro-government forces, the report said.
More than 200,000 of the nearly 5.7 million votes cast have been thrown out
because of these allegations
That can be a big fraction of votes to not count. That could make or break an election.
"August (was) the deadliest month since the beginning of 2009
August had the most fatalities this year for civilians in Afghanistan because of
the country's disputed election, and violence could rise again when the final
results are released, a U.N. report warns.
About 1,500 people died in Afghanistan from the beginning of the year to August,
according to the U.N. report released this week.
A lot of people are dying in Afghanistan, i think this is wrong because they are just civilians. If we had more soldiers over there i dont think this would happen as much.
In afghanistan, august was the month with the most civilian fatalities. This is believed to be from violence coming form the country' s recent election. The death was not stated for the month yet, but in 2009 august has been called the "deadliest month". The amount of violence is coming from increasing insecurity over that last few months. I think this should show us that Afghanistan does need help and is in need for more troops to help keep every thing under control.
I agree with Lauren. I think that if there is still this much violence and chaos going on in Afghanistan, it should send a message to our government that the United States still needs to be over there and that the war is obviously not over yet.
Why are we still sending troops over if it is just utimately killing them? I agree with Lauren and Rebecca with that idea that if this continues, we need to take them out of Afghanistan. Majority of Afghans might not want our help. If this is the case, we actually aren't helping anything. Instead, we are just instigating the killing.
August had the most fatalities this year for civilians in Afghanistan because
of the country's disputed election, and violence could rise again when the final
results are released, a U.N. report warns.
It just seems so unreal how people can have invalid votes for Presidental elections. Our country's system seems so good and prevents fraud like this. I couldn't even imagine the turmoil in the country who encounters this situation.
i also can't believe this because it is just so unreal. it's completely crazy how this happens even now. isn't America supposed to be a growing country?
Maybe this is a sign of some desperation. They realize that they are beginning to lose and rather than waste what resources they have left they want to make sure they are going for a more important targets. Perhaps this is a good sign for us.
This is horrible. I'm glad that WAW and other non-profit organizations provide safe-houses like these so women and children can be protected from the abuse that seems normal to them.
In August, President Obama laid out the rationale for stepping up the fight in
Afghanistan: If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger
safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not
only a war worth fighting.
I completely agree that it is not a war worth fighting for in Afghanistan a war would be almost impossible to win.
This is not because the Taliban is so strong; generous estimates suggest it
numbers no more than 20,000 fighters. It is because the Afghan government and
the 90,000-man Afghan army are still so weak.
Having overthrown the ruling government in 2001, the U.S. has an obligation to
leave to Afghans a country that is somewhat stable. And a stabilized Afghanistan
is a necessary precondition for a peaceful South Asia, which is today the
epicenter of global terrorism and the most likely setting of a nuclear war.
Obamas Af-Pak plan has a real chance to achieve a stable Afghanistan if it is
given some time to work.
I kind of understand the U.S. obligation in a way and in another way I don't. We might have overthrown their government to promote peace in their country, but I don't feel that leaves us with an obligation to fix it. I feel that the efforts the U.S. has already put in to fix this country are plentiful and that the country needs to try to find a way of being stable other than the U.S.
Another common criticism is that Afghanistan is a cobbled-together agglomeration
of warring tribes and ethnic factions that is not amenable to anything
approaching nation-building. In fact, the first Afghan state emerged with the
Durrani Empire in 1747, making it a nation older than the U.S. Afghans lack no
sense of nationhood; rather, they have always been ruled by a weak central
state.
I am happy that our troops are keeping al-Qaeda from taking over Afghanistan.
A third critique is that Afghanistan is simply too violent for anything
constituting success to happen there. This is highly misleading. While violence
is on the rise, it is nothing on the scale of what occurred during the Iraq war
— or even what happened in U.S. cities as recently as 1991, when an American was
statistically more likely to be killed than an Afghan civilian was last year.
I had no idea America was so violent only about a decade ago.
A BBC/ABC News poll conducted this year, for instance, showed that 63% of
Afghans have a favorable view of the U.S. military. To those who say you cant
trust polls taken in Afghanistan, its worth noting that the same type of poll
consistently finds neighboring Pakistan to be one of the most anti-American
countries in the world.
I think it's promising how more than half the Afghans favor the U.S. military presence in their country.
Obamas Af-Pak plan is, in essence, a countersanctuary strategy that denies safe
havens to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, with the overriding goal of making America
and its allies safer.
Having overthrown the ruling government in 2001, the U.S. has an obligation to
leave to Afghans a country that is somewhat stable. And a stabilized Afghanistan
is a necessary precondition for a peaceful South Asia, which is today the
epicenter of global terrorism and the most likely setting of a nuclear war.
Obamas Af-Pak plan has a real chance to achieve a stable Afghanistan if it is
given some time to work.
I understand whats obviously right and wrong, but its seems that its going to be very difficult to change a system of goverment that has been enforced for many years. Some people may not want to give up what they know because that's all they know.
Under Obama, the Pentagon has already sent a surge of 21,000 troops to
Afghanistan, and the Administration is even weighing the possibility of
deploying as many as 40,000 more.
I think that by sending in more troops, the U.S. will have a better chance of doing what it needs to do and getting out of Afghanistan more quickly than it would with less troops.
Afghanistan as it was in the 1970s, a country at peace internally and with its
neighbors, whose towering mountains and exotic peoples drew tourists from around
the world.
Diana Ames knows just how desperate a person can feel.
Advertisement
She and her husband, Ron, found themselves temporarily homeless in the early 1980s when he lost his job at Riley Stoker. The couple and their five children were spared by a local social-services agency that put them up at a motel for a month.