Saving Face in Afghanistan
By Ron Paul
October 14, 2009 -- This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.
The current debate is focused en
More..tirely on the question of troop levels. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000 in addition to that? Why not 500,000 – just to be “safe”? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58 percent are now against it?
I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We’ve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives – for what?
The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.
Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back.
The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that. Less..
Added: Oct 15 2009 In: news_politics
Recorded on: Oct 14 2009
By: Big__Beezy
- Views: 789 |
- Votes: 0 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 18
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
I love that Ron Paul interview in the movie Bruno.
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
The US is paying the contractors.
The Italians were paying the taliban.
Why not have the contractors pay the taliban?
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "buttkracken" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "gregory_peckory" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
Or, we could get stuck in limbo where it is just as hazardous to leave, as it is to stay. The surge worked in Iraq, but I don't know if it will work in Afghanistan. A troop increase could inflame more Pakistanis and other nationals who are now on the fence and cause a wider conflict. Interesting times.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "gregory_peckory" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
Or, we could get stuck in limbo where it is just as hazardous to leave, as it is to stay. The surge worked in Iraq, but I don't know if it will work in Afghanistan. A troop increase could inflame more Pakistanis and other nationals who are now on the fence and cause a wider conflict. Interesting times.
If you're in that situation, afraid to make a move for fear of pissing somebody off, you've already lost.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
Or, we could get stuck in limbo where it is just as hazardous to leave, as it is to stay. The surge worked in Iraq, but I don't know if it will work in Afghanistan. A troop increase could inflame more Pakistanis and other nationals who are now on the fence and cause a wider conflict. Interesting times.
If you're in that situation, afraid to make a move for fear of pissing somebody off, you've already lost.
Agreed. But we've surpassed the point of pissing people off. Now it's how much more we can piss them off without burning the whole house down, along with the neighborhood.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "gregory_peckory" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
Or, we could get stuck in limbo where it is just as hazardous to leave, as it is to stay. The surge worked in Iraq, but I don't know if it will work in Afghanistan. A troop increase could inflame more Pakistanis and other nationals who are now on the fence and cause a wider conflict. Interesting times.
If you're in that situation, afraid to make a move for fear of pissing somebody off, you've already lost.
Agreed. But we've surpassed the point of pissing people off. Now it's how much more we can piss them off without burning the whole house down, along with the neighborhood.
They were already pissed off long before we ever came into the picture. The Pashto used to rule India many centuries ago, and they've been treated like dirt ever since they lost power. I feel for them but it doesn't change anything.
Do you realize how many letters Roosevelt, congressmen and senators got every day to stop bombing German cities? Thousands. What effect did it have? They increased the bombing 10-fold to end the war more quickly.
It may be necessary to burn the entire neighborhood, I really don't know. My point is that taking options off the table will only prolong the war and suffering. If we aren't willing to burn the entire neighborhood to win, we should definitely withdraw now.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
If you don't know why youare in Afghanistan, the jew bankers who are cashing for every military vehicules, ariplanes and arms you buy know why.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "JohnMcLane2008" (R)
"If we aren't willing to burn the entire neighborhood to win, we should definitely withdraw now."
Well said. There is no substitute for victory, as MacArthur observed.
As usual, Ron Paul is right on. He could have made a good President, but the people prefer rousing speeches, bread, and circuses to reason and discipline. To paraphrase a line in 'Cool Hand Luke': "We wants it.....we git's it."
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "ericredbeard" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
Or, we could get stuck in limbo where it is just as hazardous to leave, as it is to stay. The surge worked in Iraq, but I don't know if it will work in Afghanistan. A troop increase could inflame more Pakistanis and other nationals who are now on the fence and cause a wider conflict. Interesting times.
If you're in that situation, afraid to make a move for fear of pissing somebody off, you've already lost.
Agreed. But we've surpassed the point of pissing people off. Now it's how much more we can piss them off without burning the whole house down, along with the neighborhood.
They were already pissed off long before we ever came into the picture. The Pashto used to rule India many centuries ago, and they've been treated like dirt ever since they lost power. I feel for them but it doesn't change anything.
Do you realize how many letters Roosevelt, congressmen and senators got every day to stop bombing German cities? Thousands. What effect did it have? They increased the bombing 10-fold to end the war more quickly.
It may be necessary to burn the entire neighborhood, I really don't know. My point is that taking options off the table will only prolong the war and suffering. If we aren't willing to burn the entire neighborhood to win, we should definitely withdraw now.
I don't know either. Still have more questions than answers.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "gregory_peckory" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
"Quagmires only apply when you lose."
or when theres nothing to win
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "Big__Beezy" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
"Quagmires only apply when you lose."
or when theres nothing to win
That's a bit vague. I'll admit, both the last and current administration, as well as NATO, have had a lot of trouble articulating goals and methods to the public. Probably because it's not too clear whose side Pakistan is on.
There is something to win: but nobody wants to say it or admit it. The reason we went into Afghanistan wasn't to "chase Al Qaeda," as many people think. That was a secondary goal. The primary reason we went in there was that Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban was completely dysfunctional as a modern nation-state. We went to Afghanistan for nation building, a goal which both the Bush administration and the current envoy Holbrooke avidly disavow.
This is a big problem. And I think Ron Paul is missing the point as much as anybody else in this situation.
Posted Oct-15-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
"Quagmires only apply when you lose."
or when theres nothing to win
That's a bit vague. I'll admit, both the last and current administration, as well as NATO, have had a lot of trouble articulating goals and methods to the public. Probably because it's not too clear whose side Pakistan is on.
There is something to win: but nobody wants to say it or admit it. The reason we went into Afghanistan wasn't to "chase Al Qaeda," as many people think. That was a secondary goal. The primary reason we went in there was that Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban was completely dysfunctional as a modern nation-state. We went to Afghanistan for nation building, a goal which both the Bush administration and the current envoy Holbrooke avidly disavow.
This is a big problem. And I think Ron Paul is missing the point as much as anybody else in this situation.
It may be vague to someone whos naive and I dont mean that in a disrespectful way. I actually wouldnt have any problems if "nation building" was the real reason for occupying Afghanistan but thats not the song and dance we were told when it actually went down. To understand the real reasons why Afghanistan has been occupied, one need only have a quick look into a history book and notice patterns of occupation. If nation building was the goal, why Afghanistan? Please dont tell me "9-11" either. There are more nations on earth that require nation building than not. Did Afghanistan win the 'nation builders lotto'? LOL Most occupations happen under the guise of 'liberation' or 'democracy' etc etc but I fancy myself smart enough to know and realize that occupations happen because those that occupy have selfish agendas to achieve such as theft of resources and/or taking over a sovereign country because geographically, its desirable to transport stolen resources through.....as an example.
Posted Oct-17-2009 by "Big__Beezy" (R)
BTW, Obama will be sending 45,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Maybe we're trying to get Pakistan into a civil war - you know, bring all the militants there out into the open. Or, maybe this is a total quagmire.
Looks like a pincer movement to me. Make a short-term deal with Iran to stop helping the Taliban, Russia to pressure Uzbekistan, give the Paks some cash for a new offensive, etc. There are a few weak points, but it's at least a good strategy on paper.
Quagmires only apply when you lose.
"Quagmires only apply when you lose."
or when theres nothing to win
That's a bit vague. I'll admit, both the last and current administration, as well as NATO, have had a lot of trouble articulating goals and methods to the public. Probably because it's not too clear whose side Pakistan is on.
There is something to win: but nobody wants to say it or admit it. The reason we went into Afghanistan wasn't to "chase Al Qaeda," as many people think. That was a secondary goal. The primary reason we went in there was that Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban was completely dysfunctional as a modern nation-state. We went to Afghanistan for nation building, a goal which both the Bush administration and the current envoy Holbrooke avidly disavow.
This is a big problem. And I think Ron Paul is missing the point as much as anybody else in this situation.
It may be vague to someone whos naive and I dont mean that in a disrespectful way. I actually wouldnt have any problems if "nation building" was the real reason for occupying Afghanistan but thats not the song and dance we were told when it actually went down. To understand the real reasons why Afghanistan has been occupied, one need only have a quick look into a history book and notice patterns of occupation. If nation building was the goal, why Afghanistan? Please dont tell me "9-11" either. There are more nations on earth that require nation building than not. Did Afghanistan win the 'nation builders lotto'? LOL Most occupations happen under the guise of 'liberation' or 'democracy' etc etc but I fancy myself smart enough to know and realize that occupations happen because those that occupy have selfish agendas to achieve such as theft of resources and/or taking over a sovereign country because geographically, its desirable to transport stolen resources through.....as an example.
If you're setting conditions for the discussion ("don't tell me 9-11 either") then I guess the discussion is over. I won't belabor the point.
Posted Oct-17-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)