We agree that Karzai is a liability, and we agree that Taliban not in power is a US goal. What you asserted is that Karzai is in office indefinitely due to US desire that he remain so. If that wasn't your position, then please clear that up, given what you wrote that I responded to. Post #97. And I ask you again, why did the US put so much effort into supporting the election that Karzai was at risk of losing?
If it were about invading Afghanistan in the absence of 911, probably not. But if it is about walking away knowing the Taliban will re-emerge the same way they did when we walked away after the Soviets left, then yes, I think we need to stay militarily. The reason is we contributed a significant amount to the creation of the Taliban in the first place.
My way of saying it? Is there some taboo against honesty here? I'm evil for speaking the truth about America's history? Wow!
This is true, but it isn't why we went to war with them in 2001. We went to war with them due to their giving safe haven to Al Qaeda, and providing them material aid and support, and telling us to screw off. Bill Clinton shot a few Tomahawks into Afghanistsn, at Al Q training camps. At that point, any vestige of us/them connection from the Soviet era was pretty much dead. A pity that attack didn't find Bin Laden at home.
Got it, nation building, which is a part of what's been going on since 2002. The President's speech suggests, in his "civilian surge" sound byte, that such activities will become more robust. You like, right?
True enough, but that was going on before Obama's time, and will be going on most likey after his time, and he probably hasn't a tool to stop that. Also not part of his speech. Pakistan policy has become the 800 pound gorilla in this room. I'll find you a link to a nice article on that, and India's influence. It's very interesting. Here: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14984901
No, your objection to Obama's rhetoric on that score is a reasonable critique of his speech.
The question was about military intervention solely for reasons the Taliban were so atrocious. My answer was about if it were hypothetical and we were not there yet, or based on the fact we are there. So the fact we invaded Afghanistan for another reason is not relevant to my answer.
As for nation building since 2002, we weren't doing the kind of nation building under the Bush Presidency that was useful until almost the end of his term when it was obvious he had failed so miserably and he changed course. A civilian surge has to be Afghan or Iraqi civilian surge. Just bringing in foreign civilian contractors will not be helpful.
I'm not sure why it is relevant that the Madrassas were an established Taliban recruitment tool before Obama was elected. And I don't believe they are inevitable after we leave. If they are, in their current state anyway, we should leave now and not lose any more soldiers. You cannot change the problem if you do not address the roots of it.
Yes, it was one of the reasons Afghanistan attracted attention as a failed state, and as an HR disaster, during the Clinton administration. The political climate in America didn't support doing much about it. There were other fish to fry, in the Balkans for example. I'd need to go back and check, but my memory tells me that the US was getting shirty with Pakistan at the time, over their HR issues among other things, and thus delayed the sale of F-16's to them. Also tabled transfer of some second hand frigates. Congressional block of an executive branch program.
Oddly enough, Osama Bin Laden was reported to be moving in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2004, when I was more involved with such things.
Ya think?
From what? Lead poisoning? Kidney failure? Boredom? Fatigue from mountain climbing?
It would be a PR victory and a morale booster for our troops.