I may be the last uncommitted person on this site on this issue. I have been going back and forth, racking my brain, reading arguments for and against the troop escalation in Afghanistan, and I am still honestly up in the air about the correct moral and strategic path forward.
Escalators (yes, you've now been named after a transporation device in a shopping mall), you've not convinced me that a troop build up actually achieves the goal of defeating Al Qaeda or securing any loose nukes in Pakistan should that government-standing-on-shakey-ground fall. You have not convinced me that a build-up of US armed forces in the region actually secures the governments of either Afghanistan or Pakistan, and my fear is that a troop increase may have the opposite effect of introducing more violence in the region and turning the people living there against us.
Anti-escalators (you can choose the name "platform" if you want - I like it, it's hip and has a cool ring to it), you have not laid out in detail how you would pull out of Afghanistan, what type of government (if any) would be left behind, how long said pull out would take and what effect - if any - such a pull out would have on the neighboring government in Pakistan. You have not convinced me that this is the best method to squash (let's not say "defeat") Al Qaeda's attempts at launching another terrorist attack against US interests, and you have not detailed what your alternative strategy is vis a vis this organization.
So - there it is. I am an open book. A blank page upon which to test your theories, vent your passions and otherwise convince, cajole or exhort me in your direction.
Have at it, vote in the poll and don't forget to tip your waiter before you leave :-)
UPDATE: From cyberstrike in the comments, good food for thought:
Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, and while the threat of al Queda taking hold of one is at best extremely minimal, they can and eventually will destabilize the fragile Pakistani government, whose ISI (their intelligence wing) is a very corrupt group as well. As long as the USA remains in Afghanistan, al Queda will continue to destabilize Pakistan, which has its own problems with neighboring India (over Kashmir).
If US Forces should be anywhere, it should be in Pakistan, assisting the Pakistani forces in eliminating al Queda once and for all, and possibly capturing Osama bin Laden, if he is still alive. The longer the US remains in Afghanistan, the faster the region will destabilize.
Will update with a pro-escalation comment as soon as one jumps out at me.
UPDATE (2x): From RandomActsOfReason in the comments:
For me, there is a moral issue that is at least as important as the strategic issue. We created this mess - Afghanistan is now the most lethal place on the planet for a baby to be born, with the highest infant mortality in the world - and we have a moral obligation to clean up at least part of our mess, rather than just abandoning it to the Taliban.
snip
I would like to see a progressive member of Congress introduce a "matching effort" bill, that would require matching the 30,000 troops and the $30 bil dollars they cost with 30,000 Peace Corp volunteers (who cost a lot less), along with billions for building schools, roads, bridges, a reliable power grid, and a jobs for Afghans program that would make it more profitable for young Afghan men to do constructive work than to work for the Taliban or the poppy lords, because those young Taliban men's families are starving and they see no other way out.
UPDATE (3x): From JesseCW in the comments:
It would take us - if we start now before we dump a bunch of armor in - six to nine months to get out with most of what we brought in.
The situation will be no worse than when we got there, maybe better in a few limited ways. It will be no better or worse than if we leave in three years, or six.
The sooner we get out, the sooner we stop wasting a 100 billion a year while american children grow up in tent cities and more than quarter of young men 18-30 are out of work (U3, scared to check U6).
Will update with a counter-point as I find one.
UPDATE (4x): From zonk in the comments:
Lost in the shuffle is the fact that Iran is no friend to Taliban. They're certainly supplying weapons into Afghanistan to destabilize things -- but prior to 2001, they were actually the Northern Alliance's biggest supporters. I'm not saying that's a REASON to support the escalation, just that there is an opportunity for some unintended detente.
snip
Yes, I know there are conditions on the ground provisos -- who honestly didn't think there would be? -- but unlike Vietnam, unlike Iraq until 2008 -- we have a timeline. There is a legitimate date that we can target, a legitimate date we can give to Afghanistan, a legitimate date we use as a marker. If 2011 rolls around and that timeline is ripped up in favor of an open-ended arrangement -- I will not be willing to support it... but I am willing to give this administration until then.
snip
I think we had justifiable reasons for going into Afghanistan and I'm angry as all hell that we wasted 6 years piddling around while the neocons and Bush moved on to shinier objects.
UPDATE (5x): From tworoads:
...the question is not does one support the escalation, but rather, how does one justify sending soldiers who have already seen four and five combat tours -- many who endured the Bush/Gates extended rotation of 15 months -- to rack up their sixth and seventh tours? How does one justify that the time between tours grows ever shorter? How close to breaking do they have to come before someone says enough?
There are other considerations as well -- the hundreds more billions spent, the billions in equipment lost with no plans or capability to replace, the lack of any measurable goal amongst them. But those all pale, in my estimation, next to the question of what we're doing to those who serve.
UPDATE (6x): from Vayle:
I don't like the conflict continuing in Afghanistan.
I don't believe this is a betrayal of President Obama. He said he would pursue this.
I believe there was a mission in Afghanistan and it was summarily ignored and has thus far resulted in failure of the previous administration to execute and bring to a closure.
I do not have faith that the draw down will occur as stated. I worry that region stabilization is as much a reason as an excuse to stay. I'm concerned that a jumping point to other areas in the region will provide ways for those in power to potentially extend the overall conflict, and the war profiteering machine here at home via the military industrial complex.
I will give the benefit of the doubt, for now, that there are goals that can be achieved. I believe that if there are attainable measures that can be achieved, that to leave prematurely would be a greater detriment than to develop a plan of action, implement that plan, achieve the stated goals and then leave.