The Afghanistan Papers

[CORed]

Not clear on what is being revealed here. Didn't we know it would be unwinnable after watching the USSR slog along? Wasn't the debate early on about how it would be a Quixotic waste of blood and money? I recall that conversation starting about thirty seconds after President Bush saying they had 48 hours to release the terrorists. What is new here?

The British tried, and failed, to colonize Afghanistan in the 19th century. The Soviet Union tried, and failed to conquer Afghanistan in the 20th century. It's apparently our turn to do the same in the 21st century. We initially went in there to get Osama Bin Laden. We came close, but managed to botch it, and then for some reason, we never left.

 

[Trebuchet]

This, I think moving against aL Qaida and it's Taliaban supporters was inevitable and necessary after 9/11. But it was bungled, and one reason was the stupid Iraq invasion took away the military resources that could have possibly won the war in Afghanistan.
Problem is what do we do/ Let the Taliaban take over in Iraq? You know they will want revenger on the US, and will no doubt support Islamic Terrorist.It's the problem from hell. Bad to stay, bad to leave.

Afghanistan was already thoroughly bungled by the time Iraq started, more than two years later.
And like someone said, the Taliban doesn't want Iraq. That would be their fellow fanatics, ISIS. All offshoots of Wahabism. Why is it we love the Saudis so much?

 

[rjh01]

So we should have just turned the other cheek after 9/11?

Others have given other options. Can I suggest that doing nothing would have left the USA much better off? The wars it fought were very costly in both lives and money. Far more than the damage done on 9/11. The terrorists would probably have faded out to nothing, as they had spent a huge amount of money in training those pilots and used several more good men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To me, that's Iraq. Going into Afghanistan was at least somewhat justified. It was then bungled badly.

It didn't take a war with Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not clear on what is being revealed here. Didn't we know it would be unwinnable after watching the USSR slog along? Wasn't the debate early on about how it would be a Quixotic waste of blood and money? I recall that conversation starting about thirty seconds after President Bush saying they had 48 hours to release the terrorists. What is new here?

Yes, especially since we slogged along for a couple years before giving it over to the Soviets.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When the whole thing started I figured we were not even going to try to overthrow the Taliban. I was expecting a lot of special operations troops sneaking around in the dark until they nailed the Al Quada leadership and then leave.

But then I thought Cheney was serious back during the Gulf War when he said we don't do nation building. Turns out he proved it right in the worst possible way. Two wars with no plans on what to do after the regime in place was gone.

Today there is still no idea how to end things in Afghanistan other than leaving with a signature on some paper and claiming either that we won or got "peace with honor".

A real negotiated settlement or an actual win are possible. But that requires a grand strategy and a realistic assessment of what it takes to win. There is no fast way to win. It takes time and a realization that you have to win over people or at least divide the opposition. Also, the time frame is measured in decades. Not a few months or a few years. None of that will happen if the military lies to itself about what it is doing.

What's going to be really sad is if that negotiated settlement betrays the women of Afghanistan. There was a clip of some of the talks and the Taliban men were fussing about a female involved who wasn't properly covered.

 

[crescent]

What's going to be really sad is if that negotiated settlement betrays the women of Afghanistan. There was a clip of some of the talks and the Taliban men were fussing about a female involved who wasn't properly covered.

I don't know how any settlement could not betray the women of that nation. I mean, the goal of the settlement seems to be for the U.S. to leave. Once we are out, we are out. I doubt any agreement would last more than a few years (if even that long) before the Taliban decide to ignore it.

It is like Vietnam again, we are just trying to get that decent interval.

South Vietnam experienced a two-year “decent interval” between the signing of the Accords and the fall of Saigon. During Afghanistan’s decent interval the Taliban are certain to gain more power in whatever coalition government follows a peace agreement. Tanks will not crash through the gates to the Presidential Palace in Kabul, as they did in Saigon, because by then the Taliban may control the palace.

 

[Puppycow]

One of the "dirty little secrets" of this war:

Gold Star Families Sue Defense Contractors, Alleging They Funded The Taliban

More than 100 Gold Star families are suing several major defense contractors, alleging they made illegal "protection payments" to the Taliban — thereby funding the Taliban's insurgency efforts that killed or wounded thousands of Americans in Afghanistan.

It's illegal under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act to provide material support to the Taliban. The U.S. has warned defense contractors that protection payments are against the law, but according to the lawsuit, the practice has proliferated because defense contractors feel it's a cost of doing business.

"Defendants supported the Taliban for a simple reason: Defendants were all large Western companies with lucrative businesses in post-9/11 Afghanistan, and they all paid the Taliban to refrain from attacking their business interests," the complaint says. "Those protection payments aided and abetted terrorism by directly funding an al-Qaeda-backed Taliban insurgency that killed and injured thousands of Americans."

According to the lawsuit, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Taliban in 2005 began systematically approaching international businesses operating in Afghanistan, and offered them a choice: pay up, or else. "Defendants paid the Taliban to leave them alone," the suit alleges. "The payments saved Defendants money: it was cheaper to buy off the Taliban than it would have been to invest in the security necessary to mitigate the terrorists' threats."

In essence, we (the taxpayers) have to pay "protection money" to the Taliban to get the supplies into Afghanistan that our troops need to fight the Taliban.

 

[Checkmite]

One of the "dirty little secrets" of this war:

Gold Star Families Sue Defense Contractors, Alleging They Funded The Taliban



In essence, we (the taxpayers) have to pay "protection money" to the Taliban to get the supplies into Afghanistan that our troops need to fight the Taliban.

Suing the victims of extortion for being victims of extortion - well it's an interesting twist.

I have read summaries of the "Afghanistan Papers", probably the same most others have read, and I am confused by wide-ranging proclamations that the material is as "big" as the Pentagon Papers, or that what they reveal is somehow scandalous. They seem to reveal that some of the military leaders of US forces in Afghanistan had a pessimistic outlook on the conflict, and that's about it. Claims that the US government has been telling "lies" that the war was going well and/or covering up the truth seem laughable to me; the Afghanistan conflict has widely and popularly been regarded as a "quagmire" situation since before Bin Laden's elimination and nothing has changed that.