Would Winning the McChrystal Afghanistan War Harm USA?

Question

The Gen. Stanley McChrystal version of the Afghanistan war is all about protecting the "good innocent civilians" (aka Karzai constituents) from the "bad murderous Taliban" (aka most of the Afghan population).

Winning this war is done by winning hearts and minds, and then figuring out who are the "good" Afghans, and who are the "bad" Afghans, and then deciphering the cell structure of the tribal Talibans, and then rolling up their networks, in tiny villages and hamlets, in high mountain country about the size of Texas.

Now to win this war the USA must clear ground of the bad persons, assure the security of the good persons by leaving troops scattered over an area the size of Texas,  so the gound can be held.

Then once we "win the war" we have to create an economy, build a nation, provide a government, and assure the security of all persons in Afghanistan for the next 20, 50 or 100 years (sort of like Bosnia or Iraq).

Wouldn't we be much better off not "winning that war"?

Right now Afghanistan is an ungoverned region, as it has been for the last 6000 years.

There's a vast badlands of warlords and lawlessness.

In that environment, we could be the most dangerous lethal force out there. There are no rules in a knife fight. There are no rules of engagement in a lawless ungoverned badlands.

And there are no Al Qaida in Afghanistan, or Afghanis in Al Qaida --- that's just a corporate/government lie told to sell more war materielle, ammo, helo blades, and support services. Al Qaida is in Pakistan and in Germany, and in France, where they can get food, clean water, electricity, and the basic amenities. Wouldn't you be? Who in their right mind would go to Afghanistan to plan complex terror attacks on the USA? 9/11 was planned in Germany and the Czech Republic in case you didn't know.

If we had a free hand in the badlands, with no rules of engagement, and no obligation to build a nation or win hearts and minds, we could surely tamp down any emergent military threat that could extend itself beyond the borders of Afghanistan. All we have to do is blow things up when they appear on the surface. It's inconceivable and militarily impossible to develop a weapons system or attack method that could go from Afghanistan to USA while not creating any trace or sign above ground. The Germans couldn't do it at Peenamunda and they were 100,000 times more advanced than the Taliban. They couldn't even hide their jet plane factory, which they tried to do under 30 feet of concrete. You can't hide anything of international military significance by operating entirely underground or in caves -- even an advanced and wealthy nation can't do it, much less a 12th century destitute group of people with assets less than Bangla Desh.

So we could destroy any threat arising in Afghanistan.

But only if we decline to "win a war" there.

Winning a war there would be an absolute catastrophe for USA.

McChrystal is an imbecile, and Petraeus is too, and they should both be fired.

Thinking is so important. 

Wearing funny hats and cloaks does not make one a government.

Wearing four stars does not make one a capable General.

We need to avoid harm to USA, not create harm to USA.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

species147 · Accepted Answer

By attacking groups in Afghanistan, most flee into the surrounding countries.   Thus, the defense department is creating the very thing that is needed to justify the current atmosphere of security.   More contracts for defense pilfered out to subsidiaries and friends for various purposes justified through fallacious logical fallacies too numerous to comprehend with a straight face.   Haliburton handled, not millions, but billions in a manner that any accountant would label as blatantly fraudulent, criminal and just plain stupid.   Personally, I believe the debacle to be the largest insider heist in American history hidden under the rationalizations of war wasteful mongering.   Pay offs and pay outs were made but to whom and for what?   The answers to these questions are discombobulated within a fog of an unrecoverable paper trail.
It is clear to me that we are not in Afghanistan for the reasons and reasoning vomited out by the mass media.   Folks in the arena of war are just playing their parts as best as they can even if those parts require them to act like imbeciles.   That being said, what are some other possible scenarios for our involvement?   Perhaps the containment of "Russia's" vast oil resources and the implications thereof.   An oil pipeline through Afghanistan?   Or perhaps, the access to precious metals in all those mines and caves which are worth 100 times more than diamonds and gold per ounce on the world market.   Or perhaps, it's a drug war for all that opium?   Perhaps, to increase instability in the surrounding areas thus, minimizing the difficulty of penetrating and weakening the resolve of various governmental structures?   I'm sure there are more arm chair theories.   Honestly, I do not know the answer because I get my information from the corporate media, congressional hearings of vacuous regurgitation and innuendos from internet banter.

Pfo · Answer

No doubt it will be expensive and difficult.

But your idea that we can handle the situation from a bird's eye view is wrong.  We have to be on the ground and entrenched in the situation.  No one has ever won a military campaign from the sidelines.

Al Qaeda isn't interested in formal military conflicts.  They won't be building bases or traditional armies.  They will keep training guerrillas and terrorists.  Everyone remembers 9/11, but few know that they constantly bomb US embassies whenever they get the chance where ever one exists.

ducky aka Mr Duck · Answer

MAYBE...

we should have stayed home and done our best to pretend 9-11 Never Happened.

would that be better ?


FYI : the Only way to win a war is to be Victorious.

Trending News

Would Winning the McChrystal Afghanistan War Harm USA?

3 Answers