Who are the good guys ...... not always as easy one to answer?
Do they want a Western-style democracy, the bad guys don't?
Do they want a McDonalds and Starbucks on every street corner, I guess no

Maybe by stop attacking other countries.

Sending troops to dozen foreign countries to liberate peasants from their resources, bomb them from distance of thousand km and then when they do fight back call for foul. How do they dare to fight back?

The thing is, no matter how hard you try to persuade everyone that you are liberator that brought freedom and democracy to X country, if people in that country do not want that, then you are not liberator but aggressor. When Third Reich occupied Yugoslavia, they claimed they liberated nation from oppressive King - but people did not want Third Reich to rule them, so 800.000 partisans went to the hills and fought Wehrmacht. At that time, German generals were furious with this partisan struggle, they thought it was not fair to attack from ambush, but did they thought it was fair that the most advance army in the world at that time attacked little backward nation like Yugoslavia? No they did not. But when odds turned, they did called for foul.

So face it, people do not want foreign troops to control they country, and it worth double for Afghanistan. India, British Empire, Russian Empire, Soviet Union failed to realize this on time, and USA is making the same mistake. You can try for hundred years to keep control there, and they will fight still. Leave them be.

+1

I disagree. The Afghan people *hate* the Taliban. We can get the message across that we are only there to hunt the Taliban, and do not intend to keep permanent bases. We need to convince them that we do not want to institute western democracy or change their culture.

So long as the community is so devoutly religious and culturally sensitive, our troops will keep fucking up and getting the locals mad at them. Sure, the women and the educated would like us to stay, but in that country a woman's voice is still worthless. Without education for Afghans, they won't have any change. Too bad the opposition wants to outlaw education for most of the population.

This problem cannot be solved by us. Without proper education, the Afghan masses can be radicalized by imams and the Taliban. Even if we started education programs 10 years ago, we can't structurally make changes if they're being taught one thing in school and another at home. It'll take generations to work Afghanistan out of the shit-hole it currently is in

Gun, see, if we didn't want to institute western democracy and change their culture, we could say that, but we do, so uhh……

I was under the impression that we were there to kick the Taliban's ass (and al-Qaeda's ass). Nation building is a bitch. I would not support the war if I thought it was about nation building. We don't have the money for it.

We'd known bin Laden was in Pakistan since 2005. What else do you think we were doing in Afghanistan since then, playing paintball?

Our soldiers are still getting shot at and roadside bombed. Someone has to be doing the shooting and bomb-making.

Don't give up / quit

1 keep the pressure on Afghanistan's government to improve it's governance & fight corruption & improve it's "service delivery" ( security, education health ) to it's citizens

2 get the locals to build the new schools, hospitals etc, not "western contractors" eg Haliburton, work at the "village level" give the farmers security & alternative markets for alternative crops to opium

3 fight the Taliban without let up & do it the "hard way" with troops on the ground, not with unmanned drones and relying all the time on "air power"

4 Get much tougher with Pakistan -- corruption is a major problem

5 Don't just leave it to the USA, pressure European Nations & others to do their bit,
--all these countries that want a "bail out" eg Greece demand a "quid pro quo"

I am an Australian & we make a bigger contribution than a lot of other nations with bigger populations than ours -- and we know how to win -- one of the mistakes of the Vietnam war was you (the USA ) didn't "learn" from us -- How about giving our Military the command ??? or at least an equal level of cammand ??

6 stop using "reservists" on short duration cycles ( to bolster numbers )-- use your best
trained & equipped units -- a smaller number of "elite professionals" always achieve more than a larger number of less interested 2nd rank forces -- don't try and do this
"on the cheap"
-- seen the movie with Tom Hanks about the war in Afghanistan against the Russsians "Charlie Parkers War "or some such title -- the point made at the end of the movie where after being willing to spend millions supplying Afghanistani's fighting thje Russians ( today's Taliban in many cases ) and then no money for "rebuilding" -- Schools and Hospitals-- you dropped the flippin' ball when you were in sight of the "end zone"

It's easily forgotten these days, but the incredible generosity of the USA in "rebuilding" in Europe after WW2 is a great example of the need to "win the peace" after winning a war --- in Afghanistan you have to do both at the same time--
1 build a better society - give the Afghanistani's a chance to "raise their children" in some safety
2 fight the Taliban & those that supply them -- deny them the income from the Heroin trade & not just by attacking the source ( eg burning opium crops) but by attacking the financiers, and those "higher up the production & distribution chain"

It's never going to be easy to sort this out -- better start thinking of a twenty year commitment & get your heads around the idea of paying the taxes to fund it -- I am
sick of the greedy pricks who want to "minimise their tax bill" --- what about all those who have paid in blood ??? Oh you can't buy a new yacht / sports car / painting or sculpture / basketball team ---- what about those families who have a "damaged" son, brother, daughter, sister or only the photo's & memories ???

& EDUCATE the Afghanistani WOMEN

most people want to be able to raise their children and want the opportunity for their children to have a "better life" -- if we give the locals that opportunity they will generally support us against the Taliban

if the locals think we'll be leaving then they'll just wait and then the Taliban & extremists win -- they've seen the Russians come and go, the USA support them and then quit, so we need to make it clear that we are not leaving until the Taliban are defeated, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, there is a "functional nation state" that is not corrupt / innefective, in which they, the locals have a voice / stake

Lots of bombs. Rubble doesn't cause trouble.

Shockingly I generally agree with MajorMitchell here. \

Just to add...

Rebuilding Europe/Japan (and Soviet rebuilding in its occupied areas) was incredibly expensive, and that was the rebuilding of societies that were comparatively united, with sophisticated models of infrastructure and very little geographic or political capacity for effective resistance.

That is decidedly not true in Afghanistan, so it makes sense that the process is significantly more difficult, expensive, and fraught with difficulties. But there are successes; thousands of girls are getting educations, something unthinkable before. They will have the tools to create a country their forbears just did not have.

So yes I think it's possible, but it needs a lot more investment, commitment, and willingness to make compromises (eg. easing up on the war on drugs when just burning all the poppie fields starves peasants straight into the arms of the Taliban).

I definitely think that the war is winnable if we stop losing support on the homefront. Only 11 years since 9/11 and people are already forgetting? That's depressing.

@ dipplayer is that a "troll" message ???
indiscriminate bombing is how to lose the war--- the guy who comes home to find rubble on top of his dead family will never forgive those responsible for dropping the bombs

we are winning in Afghanistan but it'll take us a lot longer to defeat the Taliban .

the Opium problem is a good example -- simply burning a farmers opium crop without negotiation / permission & offering compensation won't work
attack those further up the production & distribution & financing chain
and deal with the demand side as well -- all those (relatively affluent ) users in western countries -- maybe supplying "medicinal" heroin to them
attack the traffickers and financiers

a lot of these peasant farmers don't have a choice -- the Taliban or local drug lord sends in the henchmen -- the famer is told that if he wants his wife & kids to stay alive then he are growing opium for the Drug lord / Taliban & it's not the peasant farmers driving new Mercedes Benz's etc and making the big money from the Heroin trade.

Despite all the world's Police, Jails and "Git tough on Law & Order" Politicians etc
the 2 biggest forms of economic activity in todays world are
1 Arms trade
& 2 Drug trade
and you cannot run these two multi billion dollar "businesses" without the complicit support of Banks, Lawyers & Acccountants
for Example -- one of Englands biggest Banks has alledgedly been handling hundreds of millions of dollars for Drug syndicates
If we could confiscate the assets of the Mexican & South American Drug cartels, I'd be a happy camper

No, I wasn't trolling. We should never have gotten involved in this humanitarian, nation-building bullshit. It is better to be feared than to be loved. We should have shown the world the wrath of the United States of America. We should have rained destruction down upon their heads and the heads of anyone who is related to them. It should have been made clear as glass that "you don't fuck with the United States of America, because they will kick your ass."

Very few of the munitions & arms used by the Taliban are produced in caves in the mountains-- they are produced in China, Europe, USA etc

@ dipplayer
you tried the "overwhelming force" strategy in Vietnam
you got your asses kicked & couldn't afford the cost, despite your wealth

@ dipplayer
you are also completely wrong with the
"it's better to be feared than loved" argument
fear only creates hatred
if you believe that bullshit, then perhaps you should emigrate to North Korea
thats a totalitarian state run on fear & propoganda, so would be a suitable country for you to live in, if you actually believe that rubbish.

I assert that it is far better to be Loved and Respected, than feared and hated

We are loved and respected by our friends, but to our enemies we should be feared. It is up to them to move from one camp to the other.

If a member of the United States military murders a Pakistan women, cold-blooded, no excuses, are you personally responsible? Do you deserve to die?

If not, why do the people you will necessarily kill in your indiscriminate bombing raids deserve to die for the sins of a tiny minority of their compatriots?

Is there any deeper morality to your policy suggestion? Or simply might makes right?

I am really hoping you're trolling, and not just morally bankrupt and incredibly hypocritical.

The Pakistanis already think I deserve to die for being an infidel. I don't see any room for seeing eye-to-eye there.

And it is not a tiny minority. The afghanis don't want us there. They are murdering our people all the time.

I value those American lives. I don't want them thrown away for no purpose. Why are our people dying in Af-fucking-ghanistan? What the fuck are we doing there? We can't make Chicago or Detroit into civilized places; what makes us think we can do it in Kandahar?

Screw them. We've given them a chance. We've poured money and lives into bringing them some civilization. They don't want it. No more money, no more American lives lost. Bring our people home. And if there is ever evidence that our nation is threatened by those barbarians again, then Carthago delenda est.

War is Hell.

take the Loved & Resected versus Feared and Hated test to a personal level

I might fear someone, some group, so I might "obey" ( or give the appearance of obedience with token things to ) that person or group, but only to a certain degree, and only reluctantly, & I'll always be looking for the opportunity to fuck them up, pushed too far and I'll chose resistance & fighting back.

Then look at what a person will do for those he or she loves

To win in Afghanistan we have to do more than defeat a bunch of poorly equipped thugs in a firefight

Convince the majority of Afghan people that their children have a better, safer future with economic and educational opportunities by building a functional nation state of their own with our help, and they will support us against the Taliban

Ignore the desires of the Afghan people for their children's future and they will not support us

It doesn't matter if a man is a rich Rock star living in a mansion in LA, eg Gene Simmons
or a peasant farmer in Afghanistan, both will do anything to protect their children

if you are serious with your statements dipplayer, then I think you are one of those cork brained clowns who will not learn from History & are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past
Plus, with that attitude, you would be of absolutely no use in an "elite" military unit, you wouldn't even be of use as a flippin' Lance Corporal in a regular unit
The men quickly work out which NCO's and Commisioned Officers don't give a fuck about them & despise them accordingly -
- whereas the Officer the men Respect, and yes, LOVE, because they know the Officer values them, cares for them, that Officer can lead his men into any situation with confidence.
( and let's make this clear, I am not talking of Love between men that is a "sexual" love -- thats a whole separate issue and not wanted in the circumstance I describe )
I am discussing a concept of Love that is not sexual, I am discussing the bond of love forged for and in combat. Normal persons do not kill. The "psychology" of the Military is unique. Men and now women have to be "psychologically deconstructed" as individuals and "reconstructed" as members of a "team" or "unit" as part of basic training.
The "normal" response to great danger is panic & fear
Military training is designed to produce persons who, when confronted by great danger,
can control/ignore fear, and who can, most importantly not panic, but function as part of a unit or team, and they are trained to kill.

Civilians need to understand that they will never fully understand what war does to the men and women who endure it on their behalf.
it's only other veterans who can understand
& it's no surprise that veterans generally will not discuss "what went on in the war" with civilians
& any prick that thinks he's paying too much tax needs to have a long hard look at the
treatment all vets get & especially "damaged" vets --- you think you can ever give them an adequate pension & support services ??? or the families that only have memories and photo's ???

your an idiot dipplayer
you say you value the lives of your soldiers, then do not waste their sacrifice -- by supporting this bullshit "run away, run away" crap.
I want us to WIN this flippin' war, and we cannot WIN unless we help to create a functioning soveriegn state in Afghanistan.
So pull your ignorant head out of your arse, pay your flippin' taxes, support your Military
and read some History & try to elevate your thinking to a more sophisticated level.
Until then you are "dismissed" so "cut along like a good chap", and leave discussion of important and complex problems to the ADULTS

What the hell does the NCO/officer/enlisted relationship have to do with anything? Or any of that tangent about our veterans? It's because I have a nephew in the Marines, who could have his life on the line, that I don't want to give any more. If he was sent to Afghanistan, and died there, what would it have been for? WHAT? They don't want us there. I'm not willing to risk his life for a stupid country that hates us anyway. Or the lives of any other soldier, airman, or marine.

I'm the one who is being realistic about history. Especially the history of Afghanistan.

You want to make a functioning sovereign state in Afghanistan? You'll have to replace the Afghan people with a new one. That's the adult reality. Not wishful thinking that we can turn a 12th century society into Wisconsin.

dipplayer, you wouldn't understand "civilisation" if it kicked your arse

"And it is not a tiny minority. The afghanis don't want us there. They are murdering our people all the time. "

The Afghanis, writ large, are murdering your people all the time, huh? Not a tiny minority?

Let me subject this statement to a statistical evaluation.

2,009 American soldiers and support staff have been killed in Afghanistan, and 16,277 have been wounded. That totals to 18,286 attacks. Let's assume that each death and injury was attributable to combat (or murder, if you prefer), and each one attributable to one Afghan.

If you combine the estimates of the Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbi, IMU, Haqqani etc militants fighting in Afghanistan (many of whom are not actually from the country), they come out to between 70,000 to 100,000. Let's assume the largest estimate.

The population of Afghanistan is 30.5 million people.

That means that even in the most liberal of estimates, only 0.0033% of Afghans have taken up arms against Americans, and only 0.00059% have actually successfully attacked an American. Of them, only 0.000065% have actually murdered an American.

Meanwhile, 55,000 American soldiers have committed suicide during this same time.

I could do this same exercise, except with Afghan civilians killed directly by American soldiers or drones... it would not look good.

To further put this into perspective, note that 192,230 Americans have been murdered during the same period of time the war in Afghanistan has been going on. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

The US population has had an average population of 299 million people over the last decade from 2011 to now.

That means that by the same metric I used earlier, roughly 0.00064% of Americans have murdered another American during the same period of time as the War in Afghanistan.

What's the conclusion here? Well, the same proportion of Americans are murdering Americans as Afghans are attacking American soldiers, and TEN TIMES more Americans are murdering other Americans than Afghans are killing American soldiers.

Blaming the Afghan people writ large, the vast majority of whom are poor, impoverished, apolitical, unarmed for the atrocities of so few is simply incorrect. To imply that they are are all guilty and should all be bombed is inexcusable.

1 The examples cited are to demonstrate the INADEQUACY of relying on FEAR as a "motivational tool" you clown
2 a "country" cannot hate --people can hate

3 you cannot simply eliminate the Afghan population and purchase a replacement popualtion at flippin' Wallmart --- you effect gradual change by improving Education for the Afghani's

4 as delightful as Wisconsin might be, I do not accept it as a definiton of all that is "civilisation"

5 you should be supporting your Military, rather than undermining them. Their mission is extremely difficult, so "political" support is an "absolute must have". Your whining complaint about the cost in money is a pathetic, selfish act. You should be prepared to provide them with whatever they need and want, & if that means paying more tax and working a bit harder then "grow up" and "pay up" & if that means putting off the purchase of a new car for a year, then what a fucking sacrifice to have to make.

anyway you will not make any effort to enlighten yourself, you are being deliberately
OBTUSE, so I am wasting my time with a clown

you are "dismissed"