Who wants to curb the AFGHANISTAN war?

I'm rarely hawkish on anything unless there's a damn good reason, but Jesus - what more reason do we need to put the Taliban down once and for all?  Here's the front-page story on boston. com this evening:

House OK's $70b for wars
The bill marked a loss for antiwar Democrats hoping to curb the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (AP)

Wait a minute, now - are there really a bunch of Democrats who want to stop the war in Afghanistan?  That's not been the argument at all.  It's the IRAQ war people are pissed about, in part BECAUSE it has helped to allow the Taliban to come back.  Who is saying, "Oh, let's stop fighting the Taliban and let them reestablish a foothold?"

Quite the contrary.  From the beginning, my worst fear was that we'd make a cosmetic effort in Afghanistan, and then as soon as we could declare some sort of success, we'd get out of there and abandon the Afghan people.  But that's exactly what we've done.  And we're so irretrievably mired in Iraq that we're not getting out of there for the foreseeable future.  And for what?

The strategy ought to be really simple, and should have been from the start.  Forgive me for sounding boorish about this, but it ought to be to send an overwhelming force to Afghanistan and relentlessly smash the Taliban into the ground, so that the message is clear: you will never, ever, EVER fuck with the United States or Afghanistan again.  Learn it.  Know it.  Live it.  There will be no melting into the countryside, there will be no waiting us out, there will be no resurgence.  You will be defeated quickly, overwhelmingly, and irreversibly.  You are finished and your movement is dead.  DEAD.  End of story.  That's what we should have done from the beginning.

The message the Republicans claim to send to the world is that we are strong and we will not falter and we will not fail and all that crap.  But the message I'd be getting if I were the Taliban is that the United States is so conflicted and confused that they can't possibly keep their eye on us, and it's just a matter of time before we can return to power.  

The fact that the Taliban has been able to come back and actually start taking control of entire regions again is utterly inexcusable.  But that's the fruit of the Bush administration.  They've allowed the people who orchestrated 9/11 and those who assisted them to get away with it.  The world will soon hear from all of us, said Bush from his little bullhorn.  But what have they heard?  That we're so incompetent that we've had to undermine our own moral standards and civil liberties, drain $1 trillion from our treasury, lose more people than we lost on 9/11, and for no measurable benefit to anyone.  

What happened to the singleness of purpose we felt?  We've got plenty of ire left in the tank, but who is it even directed at?  Who is the enemy?  I don't even think we know anymore.  Nobody even talks about the Taliban these days.  Now we seem to be more pissed at each other than at anybody else.  It didn't have to be this way.

•  Sorry for the rant...

  ...but I don't even understand the premises anymore.

  by skralyx on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:38:02 PM PDT

  •  Don't apologize. Afghanistan is a righteous

    fight.  Which stands in stark contrast to the other war in Iraq which is NOT.

    by skippythebox on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:03:42 PM PDT

  •  of course many Dems, particularly Kossacks are

    against Afghanistan.  You really did not know this?  Well played by you that you think Afghanistan is important but the US is failing there.  That way, you can support a war, but still find America to be at fault.  

    The reality is Afghanistan is still a war, but in no way are "we' losing.  Maybe some check the papers each day to get the present "score".  The reality is this is a tough war because the Afghan people do not want to give up a lot of things, such as poppy production.  OTOH, in no way are we losing this war.  In fact, the majority of the troops and leaders in Afghanistan, are Europeans.  Euros are quite popular here, why not give them a break?

    The Taliban is NOT taking over large swaths of the country.  In fact, during the winter, they mostly hide in their spider holes in the mountains.  Last spring, they launched a major offensive and got their asses kicked.

    My point is this, the "we are ignoring Afghanistan because of Iraq" meme is not working.  Our Nato allies have the lead in Afghanistan, it is a totally different war, and yes, we will win there.

    by TurkeyCreek on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:32:33 PM PDT

    •  Farmers grow what sells best

      If we don't want them growing poppies, we have to make it worth their while to grow something else. We could, perhaps, aggressively curb the opium trade into Turkey. I'm not holding my breath.

      by oldjohnbrown on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:43:50 PM PDT

      •  same with tobacco here

        we even pay them not to grow.  But we can't convince them corn pays more, because it doesn't.

        by TurkeyCreek on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:19:04 PM PDT

•  Only a damned fool would invade...

  ...Afghanistan and try to occupy it.

  Invading the country is easy. Controlling it is impossible. Many have tried, all have failed. Why anyone would think the USA could succeed is a little strange.

  It's time for us to get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq. The sooner the better.

  by Rex Manning on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:53:50 PM PDT

  •  If we don't control Afghanistan

    how will we build the pipeline for Caspian Sea oil and gas?

    by groggy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:57:18 PM PDT

  •  We don't have to occupy it

    to improve its economy and infrastructure.  And we don't need a huge presence to curb the Taleban, either.

    The point is to destroy our enemies: al Qaeda and the Taleban.  This was feasible in 2001.  Since Bush botched it, it's terribly difficult to start again and do the job right.  But certainly al Qaeda must be destroyed. along with the Taleban leadership Bush let slip through our fingers at Mazar-e-Sharif.

    We could have succeeded in Afghanistan if it had mattered to Bush.  It didn't.

    by Bob Love on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:28:49 PM PDT

    •  Nah.

      Al Qaeda just changed up and moved into Pakistan.

      The Taliban are just biding their time. They're moving in whenever they can and Afghanis are actually feeling nostalgic for the days when the Taliban was in charge, the US/NATO occupation is so bad and is killing so many of them.

      Any improving of economy and infrastructure needs to be done in the USA. Let Afghanistan take care of Afghanistan.

      by Rex Manning on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:35:14 PM PDT

•  There are beneficiaries

  but nobody you would want to know, just scum.

  and for no measurable benefit to anyone

  All of the Bush/Cheney no-bid buddies.

  Then there are the Afghan war lords selling bumper crops of opium.  

  Hell, the Taliban is even in the opium business which they forbade while in power.  Gotta make the money to buy weapons and supplies.

  by groggy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:55:11 PM PDT

•  The War in Afghanistan is misbegotten

  A tactical strike to take out the Taliban? OK, although wouldn't it have been nice if we hadn't created the goddamn Taliban in the first place? It was not so long ago that Kabul was an intellectual mecca with a legendary university.

  (The defining attribute of all our current struggles is that we are fighting the very monsters we unleashed on the world. I'm not aware of a single exception, and that includes modern Russia and China.)

  What are we doing there now? Not stopping the Taliban. Not helping the pathetic excuse for a central government that we installed. Not stopping, and (depending on who you believe) either ignoring or actively encouraging the newly robust opium trade. Killing. Getting killed. Losing the goodwill of the locals.

  I understand the neoliberal argument for our occupation of Afghanistan, but neoliberalism has been a fig leaf for would-be imperialists and mercantilists since Roosevelt at the latest. We are failing to bring democracy to Afghanistan because that was never the plan. We need to get out not because we could be doing good things there; not because we were told that we would be doing good things there; because all we are doing is killing people while the drug trade soars, the central government struggles to exert control over the front lawn of its own seat of power, and the situation for ordinary Afghanis deteriorates rapidly.

  We need to face the fact that the leaders who took us into Afghanistan have their own priorities which are not ours, and we need to get the hell out until we have leaders whose priorities are ours, or close enough. It's not like the Afghanis don't know how to build a jewel of a civilization before we used their country to play footsie with the Soviets.

  by oldjohnbrown on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:41:40 PM PDT