Comments on: Afghanistan Could Prove Tricky for Democrats

By: wj

wj — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:06:43 +0000

It might be (OK, certainly will be) a problem for the far left of the Democratic Party. But Obama has consistently made the argument that Afghanistan is were we should have been focusing our efforts all along. So a change like that would actually be likely to help him with moderates . . . of both parties, and independents as well.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:09:01 +0000

gerryf brought up Pakistan, but didn’t mention how dicey they have become as an ally in Afghanistan, given the Islamic supremacists’ huge and growing influence there. If Pakistan turns outright toward the Taliban, the U.S. effort in Afghanistan is in big trouble as its major supply route would be cut off.

By: gerryf

gerryf — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:58:55 +0000

It is also a question of goals–Afghanistan was easy enough to understand: capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

If Bush had done the above, which was conceivable 7 years ago, he’d be president for life, but it’s pretty clear that 9-11 just provided an excuse for what he really wanted–Iraq

We went into Iraq because….uhm….er….cuz Iraq was was supporting al-qaeda…no, that was never true….Iraq was going to give weapons to islamic fundamentalist terrorists…uhm, no….Saddam never got along with those guys….oh, yeah, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction….oh darn, no….freedom, yeah freedom…dang, I honestly don’t know why we are in Iraq.

As for Afghanistan–good question. It is a lot harder to support that now that–in addition to screwing up Iraq–this administration has also made the original goals in afghanistan much more difficult.

The first is still possible, though arguably the first has nothing to do with Afghanistan since bin Laden is likely in Pakistan. The second is much more difficult now that Bush has given al-Qaeda the best recruiting tool it could have hoped for. The third was almost achieved, but Bush has screwed that up so much that the Taliban is actually growing in strength after nearly being destroyed.

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:28:37 +0000

But if we are wasting time and money in Iraq aren’t we also wasting time and money in Afghanistan? After all, we’ll have been there for seven years this Fall. If we haven’t stabilized the country by now, what chance do we really have?

C’mon Alan, why ask a rhetorical question you know is silly? Just because some idiotarians are bound to do so? OK, that’s a good point. :-)

Anyway, at least some of the principled folks who were skeptical of the outcome of an Iraq invasion wanted the US to focus its efforts on Afghanistan.

Concurrently, this same group thought that Iraq was an especially poor choice for invasion because the prospects for future unity were particularly poor. Why? Because of the longstanding sunni-sh’ia schism and the complicating factor of the kurds. 3 groups with disparate interests and deep antipathy. Bad place to try kumbaya.

So at least comparatively speaking, Afghanistan looked like the better opportunity. Since so manyn factors in each nation
’s circumstances remain similar today, I’d say it’s still a better opportunity.

That said, my gut says that a majority of Americans wants overseas troop levels to go down overall, and wants them diminished significantly in both places pretty soon. I doubt there’s much remaining thirst for reforming or propping up Afghanistan. The bloom’s surely off that rose.