Your Opinion, Please?

Thank you for a thought provoking question, The Taleban ran a draconian and despostic regime and refused to recognize rights for females - including the right to an education. By removing the Taleban from Afghanistan (albeit briefly) that allowed the resurgence of domination by war lord and the increased production of heroin, illegal under the Taleban. The second problem is corruption at the highest levels, with Karzai's brother getting pieces of all the construction/reconstruction action. Karzai himself is not the ideal leader and for our administration to continue to prop him up is probably not a good thing. Private contractors - and by those I assume you mean companies that are not tied by the plethora of regulations that the US military is - are used by the government to achieve goals they cannot. Because they are not bound by the same rules, they are also subject to vilification when it transpires how they achieved the government set goal and how much they were paid for it. Contract employees do not have the same protection as the US military and are at as much risk or greater, if captured.

As Senator, Obama said "When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland. The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations. We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country. Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. (see attached link) As President Obama said "The whole world ... has a core security interest in making sure that the kind of extremism and violence that you've seen emanating from this region is tackled, confronted in a serious way. ..."We have to do it as a part of a broader international community. And so one of the things I'm going to be discussing is the obligations of our international partners in this process."It's going to be very important to recognize that the Afghan people ultimately are going to have to provide for their own security. ..."It's going to be important to recognize that, in order for us to succeed there, you've got to have a comprehensive strategy that includes civilian and diplomatic efforts." ( see second link)

The message is confusing but it is clear that the president has always supported action in Afghanistan and the stabilization of that country and its economy. Now that significant deposits of minerals have been discovered, with the potential of more than $2 trillion, Afghanistan may have more of a reason for a US presence. The McChrystal debacle has changed nothing and as stated by the President yesterday, the mission stays the same as does the methodology, with the previously successful Petraeus now in command in Afghanistan. A Bush appointee, Petraeus was successful in his surge in Iraq and will take that experience into Afghanistan. Which begs the question, why did Obama not put him in that slot instead of McChrystal - if he wanted success and for the US to exit? Petraeus is not popular with the left and Moveon took our ads against him calling him General "Betray-us" and while this was a strategic move by the president, it will cost him support, but that's the nature of politics.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/06/petraeus_reax...

Based on the foregoing, I would have to assume that we will be in Afghanistan until Petraeus fulfill's the administration's goals and that will possibly be sometime to come.

I agree with Evel Justin. The war in Afghanistan will be just another Vietnam. The Americans do not seem to know whom they are fighting and how to fight, given the hostile territory and the undependable local administrationns there and in Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan, and for that matter anywhere in the world, is also necessary for the US to sustain its armaments industry. I do not believe that the present President will be able to end the war,even if he has the power and the authority. Now, with the recent discovery of minerals in the country, the war will only prolong until a logical conclusion is arrived at, either by winning the war (not considered possible) or by withdrawing and making peace with the local warlords so that the treasure can be exploited.

We went in to get the man behind 9/11, we were for that, no problem, the whole world understood that, no problem.

Along the way we decided that to get Osama we had to remove the Taliban who deserved to be gotten rid of, they were brutal, and backward. We did that, and then without a nod Bush left Afghanistan and went into Iraq. Totally messing up the purity of the chase of Bin Ladin. Draining our credibility overseas as we demanded the participation of countries that saw no reason to fight in Iraq causing quite a bit of friction and animosity that lasts until today.

The corporate media need news to survive, and the news was in Iraq, not Afghanistan you can't blame them for losing interest in a war that no longer had an objective once Bush declared about Osama, "I am not that concerned about him".

We only returned to interest in Afghanistan when the shooting stopped in Iraq, the interest in Iraqi politics isn't a good story to Americans, we have enough politics of our own.

Afghanistan is still a tough story to sell, its backwards, little infrastructure to bomb, a people whose basic desire is to make money selling opium so there isn't much real sympathy for them, and they aren't very interested in taking an active part in defending themselves from a Taliban resurgence. Its frustrating to see us take part in a war, and lose people when we have no idea what a victory could look like.

I don't believe its in the greater interests of the US to up and leave, we would gain a reputation of destroying whole countries and ignoring them after we had destabilized their land. It would make us seem unreliable as a partner in the next war to come along.

The lack of anti war protests is simple, the people there want to be there, there is no draft those soldiers choose their profession, and its an honorable one, but when there was a draft every eighteen year old, who didn't get a deferment or went into the Guard, went into the Army.

If you aren't of that mentality or family background its not something you can just work around.

Thanks for the thought you put in to posing the question 10/10 for that

As an Australian citizen I have always thought we had a duty to "make good" the initial pull out of troops

The damage done in that country was the promise to help, and withdrawal soon after

When initial trust is broken between a "perceived " invader /saviour in a western/eastern nation

you will fight an uphill battle to regain even a foothold

Obama has no idea of military matters - and shouldn't presume to think otherwise - leave that

to the pentagon

Democrat or republican....you are essentially at war with the stronghold of a religion doing all in their power to obliterate the USA

I did support the initial military offensive simply because after 9/11 many of us thought terrorism was a threat. And now that we're fighting the taliban, we see that once they have weapons they can really do some damage.

The problem with this war is the same problem we had in Vietnam. We don't know who to fight and who to trust. We have a hard time distinguishing the friends from the foes. I believe that the outcome of this war will probably be the same as Vietnam.. we're just gonna have to pull out eventually because there's no clear goal or perception of "victory".

It's time to come home, and I hope the President sticks to his July 2011 deadline.

First...Afghanistan is where the real war is raging...it was never Iraq...We never should have been in Iraq and that is why people protested. Looking at facts, the Taliban were operating in Afghanistan, not Iraq..that is why there were protests about Iraq and not Afghanistan......as for the media....I think the US is getting wore out on these wars. It's not headline news any more...it's same old same old....so they have moved on...no ratings for it sadly....

Second....Of course he has the power....he is the President. The real question is should he ? I say yes...it's where the Taliban is basing their operations from ....then again....Russia going balls out couldn't defeat those nut jobs so what makes us think we can .....

I supported the war in Middle Asia against anti-American terrorists.

I do think that Obama clearly has the authority to get out of Afghanistan. I believe his reluctance is completely based on his fear that withdrawal will reinforce the notion that he and all Democrats are clowns who are completely in over-their-head on serious isssues of National Security.

Personally if was not going to take the war in Afghanistan as seriously as he did ramming healthcare legislation he should most definitely not continue waging war. War is serious. If you are not determined and committed to win as fast and as decisive as possible, than you definitely should not be engaged in it.

Obama may be the most convincing President yet to prove that our federal government cannot chew gum and walk in a straight line.

1. No

2. Yes

The lack of anti-war protests is rooted in the hypocrisy of liberals. They only protest war when Republicans are in charge.

It is apparent that libs still do not understand why we concentrated troops in Iraq and not Afghanistan. Largely, the effort was to establish a "friendly democracy" in the ME for the purpose of fighting terrorism. Afghanistan was seen by many as a hopeless place to try to do that. Iraq was saying they wanted it.

you have to write a question not an essay. anyway if I were in charge I hate to admit it but my specialty is cut and run tactics i can get outta there on a ac carrier alone and if that gets sunk fly a jet outta there leave the wounded behind unless someone thinks we would be sent back to rescue them.

Anyone is welcome to email me if they believe I am wrong.

1.) I think I did support it at first, but it's hard to remember. That was a long time ago. Since that time I have learned a lot of things, and I am no longer in support of any military action anywhere in the world right now.

I especially do not support war in Afghanistan because we were not attacked by an element of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the Taliban. Aside from that, a war in Afghanistan (especially the way we are fighting it - see below) is un-winnable.

My reasons can be summed up as follows:

U.S. indirectly paying Afghan warlords as part of security contract

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

The U.S. military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country, according to congressional investigators.

The security arrangements, part of a $2.16 billion transport contract, violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as Defense Department regulations, and "dramatically undermine" larger U.S. objectives of curtailing corruption and strengthening effective governance in Afghanistan, a report released late Monday said.

Arms Sent by U.S. May Be Falling Into Taliban Hands

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/world/asia/20amm...

Of 30 rifle magazines recently taken from insurgents’ corpses, at least 17 contained cartridges, or rounds, identical to ammunition the United States had provided to Afghan government forces, according to an examination of ammunition markings by The New York Times and interviews with American officers and arms dealers.

Predator Drones Used to Target Civilians

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=...

According to one recent estimate by Pakistani officials, some 700 Pakistani civilians, the majority of them women and children, were killed by Hellfire missiles fired by drones in attacks ordered by the White House during Obama’s first year in office. The officials indicated that for every alleged Al Qaeda or Taliban figure killed in these remote-controlled assassinations, 147 civilians have died.

Pakistan: unlawful US drone war kills 140 innocent civilians for 1 CIA-alleged terrorist

http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m62014&hd%E2%80%A6

Pakistan’s government reported US drones killed only civilians in 39 of 44 attacks on their country in 2009; with over 700 innocent civilians killed, according to Pakistan's most widely-read English newspaper. Pakistan has repeatedly publicly denounced the US attacks, making the US guilty of War Crimes as they do not have explicit permission from Pakistan’s government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Opium

In 2000 the Taliban banned opium production, a first in Afghan history. That year Afghanistan's opium production still accounted for 75% of the world's supply. On July 27, 2000, the Taliban again issued a decree banning cultivation. By February 2001, production had been reduced from 12,600 acres (51 km2) to only 17 acres (7 ha). When the Taliban entered North Waziristan in 2003 they immediately banned cultivation and punished those who sold it.

However, with the 2001 expulsion of the Taliban, opium cultivation returned, and by 2005 Afghanistan provided 87% of the world supply, rising to 90% in 2006.

In October 2009 an uncredited report, citing only 'American and Afghan officials', appeared in the New York Times asserting that the Taliban were supporting the opium trade and deriving funding from it, counter to their documented prior banning and elimination of the drug trade in Afghanistan.

2.) Yes, obviously Obama has the power to end the war. He could basically do it today if he wanted. He campaigned on ending the Iraq war in 16 months by beginning on his first day as president to begin evacuating troops from Iraq at a rate of about a brigade or two a month. This has not happened and it will not happen any time soon.

The interests involved that keep Obama from ending the war in Afghanistan are basically two-fold: the Military-Industrial Complex, and bankers.

The United States of America has been in a constant state of war since at least the 30s. We went from fighting Nazis and fascists, to fighting communists, to fighting against drugs, to fighting against poverty to now fighting against terrorism - and the next enemy will be mankind itself in a war to combat "climate change".

This constant state of war is not accidental, a constant state of war has been deemed necessary by the elite to get the rest of us to willingly surrender our liberty and wealth.

It has been a long time since ANY president has been a real person, working for real progress for real Americans. Now (not just beginning with Obama) we've got a president who is merely a vestigial titular figurehead, a puppet of the real ruling elite of special interests.

.