UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

That's it. Not crafting a stable Afghanistan, not providing security for Karzai, not keeping the Taliban at bay.

Just Bin Laden and the boyz (which, by recent estimates, number no more than 200 - and probably more like 140). That's it.

Kill them and get out. Easier said than done, obviously, but we ought to avoid getting sucked into nation-building in Afghanistan. That's mission creep at its worst.

Jim:

It is my belief that Afghanistan is a country in name only. It was given that name when the English abandoned it many years ago. It is made up of a group of tribes most of which don't get along. It's only cash crop is opium. We haven't found Bin Laden and probably won't with conventional troops. The Russians were beaten back by the Afghan rebels. Finally, it is a shit box places of no value whatsoever.

The problem is how do we get the hell out of there. It is kind of like jumping on the back of a Tiger, easy to get on, not so easy to get off.

Here is my proposal. Announce to all parties we are leaving. Tell them we have a satellite hovering above which will be watching them at all times. We will also be flying drones on a regular basis. If we see something which would indicate activities harmful to the United States we will blow it up followed by an insertion of American troops to sweep through the area to kill anyone we didn't blow up. Then we should pull out our troops and move on.

Tom

(no message)

(no message)

My opinion is as soon as the Afghan military is ready to take over, let them. I'm also interested to see if the diplomatic efforts work with the tribal chiefs.

Domer:

The problem with fighting an insurgency is that there is no way out. Whether we leave tomorrow or ten years from now the results will be the same. Afghanistan will be nothing more than a bunch of warring tribes with the Taliban ruling the populated areas.

Tom

But I disagree that their is no end game. The end game is, and should always be to bring Bin Laden to justice. He is mentioned in almost every DC discussion regarding Afghanistan. Once we have him (or kill him), I say hand it over.

I find it hard to believe that we couldn't get the G-2 from the Paks on his whereabouts and take out him out by now.

He's been dead for years, if ya' ask me. These tapes that keep getting released are from the same guy that made them years ago.

ODUIRISH:

We now have him bottled up and he is probably totally ineffective. A strategy might be to withdraw the conventional troops and see if he comes out of hiding. If he does we might be able destroy him.

Tom

(no message)

Knute:

The Special Ops guys are a bunch of sissies. Real men go out an face their enemy, not hide in the bushes.

Tom

Spec Ops guys are reformed grunts.

"If the Taliban wants the deserts of Afghanistan and its citizens don't Stand up and fight on their own for their own and they would rather be ruled by thugs and live that life, so be it."

This is the same attitude that got us to 9/11. They wont stop at just having a desert and they will have a base camp to start all their shit again, and thats not even talking about the mountains. I'm not sure what has been in the news, but Afcrapistan is still a huge priority even to our current administration. I've "heard" that a surge early in 2010 is all but certain and that we arent leaving until we finish. Engineers is place of regular infantry and the use of certain weapons will all be authorized.

...so ask Himself about it. I think there are some military strategists who feel it is sort of an all or nothing deal. The population-centric strategy in Iraq was the key (vs the original "enemy-centric" war), and pop-centric wars require a whole lot more troop investment than just killing the enemy. I agree with you that whether this works in Afghanistan or not is a real different question than Iraq owing to the uniqueness of how the population is distributed there -- few cities and pop centers, impossible terrain, and very season-related obstacles much worse than in Iraq. So, JimBob, you raise a compelling question. My kid says that the mountain war is a whole different animal and cannot understand why the fuck we need to be there. There ain't any oil to use for terrorist capital, and we can burn the poppy fields anytime we wish. Hmmmm.

(no message)

and when we just get out and the Taliban comes back in and reestablishes training camps for terrorists (probably just in time for some of the "innocent" detainees from Gitmo to join them) then do we go back in or wait for another attack? Even BHO seems to recognize the importance of not failing in Afghanistan.

(no message)

but then again a few hijacked planes hitting skyscrapers is not such a big deal until it happens. Only then does it become failure of imagination among the enlightened.

Shooting "them" does not take away the anger only instills resolve that their ideals are right. I'm not sure what will stop their anger, but it has been proven it isn't bullets, bombs and torture.

I do agree that eight years ago the correct decision was to go into Afghanistan, but the ball was dropped shortly after with the false invasion of Iraq. Now the Afghanistan conflict has morphed into something altogether out of control and should be abandoned.

I wrote somewhere on here that Pakistan is the danger zone and we need to figure that one out and do so quickly or we'll fail on that front and it's one we can't afford to squander.

Sorry about that. I generally agree with Tom Hynes about insurgencies and think it was a major fuck up by Bush to have gone into Iraq. Afcrapistan is a much different story. What was going on there pre 9/11 was a major threat to our security and we can't let that happen again. We can't exactly just invade Pakistan and we can't let the Taliban and terrorists re-establish what they had going in the late 90's and early 2000's there. While it's far from perfect there now, it's still much better than then. It also gives us a base to strike against the tribal regions when we need to do so with special forces. We need boots on the ground for the foreseeable future there even if we probably will never "win" in the traditional sense. Gotta admit I think Barry is reading this one correctly.

What will happen now that they are unsettling Pakistan, India, Kashmir, Nepal.... is going to reek havoc upon the US and Globe.

Okay not to belabor this thread, but what would you actually do in concrete terms to lessen the threat in the region? Not just bullshit or platitudes but real specifics.

let them suffer their own fate and not drag us down with them. The Taliban will never be able to take over two countries, and they'll have to choose which is easier or better for them, Pakistan or Afghanistan. With them out of Afghanistan they will continue to pollute the illiterate and destabilize more than one country. The longer we wait the more they will infiltrate the minds of this backward land.

Sure this makes it sound easy and in no way is it an easy problem to solve but "boots on the ground" has proven to be not the solution. Nor does it recognize who they are fighting. The Russian invasion should tell us something. They don't want to be dominated. We had a chance to make a difference in the 80's. We chose to leave them to themselves. Too late now to alter their destiny, it's up to them.

Yes, find Bin Laden and drop a bomb on him and his acolytes if you can Since Bush blew that one during his reign, but don't make it a priority till it is clear the intentions of the Taliban and the direction they will choose. That would give an indication to where Bin Laden and his gang are including the master minds of the Taliban. Take them out but stop with the country building. My wallet is empty.

I'll bet the Taliban and Bin Laden are seeking Nukes. We need to find him soon and the only way to do that is to see what it is they are doing. We're bogged down in a dumbass squabble in the high hills of Peshawaristan while AQ is planning their next attack.

fight should be going on?

Did Bush continue the search for Bin Laden? No! So how is that bashing.

Who I'm bashing here are those who see this a battle to win or lose, whether it be Obama or other. It isn't a war of winning. It's a fight with no definition and no obvious end the way it is today.

That place is the gateway from the Middle East to Pakistan and India. It borders some of the most volatile states in the world, as well as China. Having a stable Afghanistan, which we had a huge part in destabilizing, if a critical job.

As for Bin Laden, that hunt continues but it's not as simple as just going to pick him up. He's hiding in a small pack in caves in an expansive desert, probably in Pakistan where we're not technically allowed to even look for him.

But congrats on getting in another Bush shot. Get over it, your guy's in charge now.

Through this upheaval Pakistan has become enormously unstable (Taliban rule in the North East). We in our laziness (Bush going into Iraq leaving behind the original fight against AQ and the Taliban) caused the Taliban to metastasize and set up shop in North East Pakistan Peshawar and the capital of Pakistan ... [Islam]abad) and now that country is on the brink of major problems. Problems that are and will continue to destabilize India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Tibet and Nepal.

We can't assist Pakistan by being in Afghanistan if we have shut off the way back into the Taliban's home country; of course their going to disrupt all the other countries. Get out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban go home and seal off the boarder when they have gone home. Do it soon before it's too late and they cannot return. Then hunt Bin Laden. Though I think the ship has already sailed, we still need to leave Afghanistan faster than ASAP.

...and they don't. They have used Tibet as an example of zero tolerance for hajis. Let the Indians and Pakistanis manage it themselves.

That's 2 or 3 times in the last five years. Something to build on, no?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)