What was your opinion about Afghanistan conflict?

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake: why may I ask the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan?

Iraq is at the heart of the Arab region, a region that must be politically transformed if we ever want to beat Islamism. As such, successful nation-building and liberal democratization in Iraq will have an immensely positive effect on both the region and US interests. This great positive effect makes the difficult nation-building process in Iraq worthwhile, IMO.

The same thing can't be said for Afghanistan. What does America get out of the effort it will take to build Afghanistan? Is Afghanistan going to provide an example for reform in Iran or Pakistan? I doubt it. Will Afghanistan provide us with a strong ally in a vital region? Not really. I can't really find any strongly positive outcomes of a rebuilt Afghanistan that would justify intensive US involvement; I can in Iraq. That's the difference, IMO.

[Ted Striker]

Alot of things "could" have happened Commie.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I personally was very please that we no had a president that was willing to do more than fire a few dozens cruise missles and call it a victory. Of course, Bill Clinton probably would have gone after the Taliban as well given the severity of 9/11.

Clinton probably would have gone after them sooner, not having to have a debate in his government whether or not they should attack Iraq. The neo-cons actually argued that we should attack Iraq first. Clinton also would have brought our allies into the fight, rather than make them hold our tailcoats, even though they were begging us to let them join the fight. The entire world was outraged and wanted revenge on the Wahabbists, and Shrub blew it.

[chequita guevara]

It is in our interests to create a viable nation in Afganistan so that some other terrrorist group doesn't set up shop there. Terrorist groups can only operate out of countries that are either willing to support them (a much smaller group these days) or are unable to stop them. If we leave Afganistan a mess, al-qaeda will move right back in when we are gone.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Clinton also would have brought our allies into the fight, rather than make them hold our tailcoats,

What would they have added?

[Ted Striker]

What Commie said.

Well the one about "it's in our best interests," not the one about Clinton.

[Drake Tungsten]

It is in our interests to create a viable nation in Afganistan so that some other terrrorist group doesn't set up shop there.

It's a lot cheaper to spend just enough money to keep Karzai in power and use US troops to keep al Qaeda out. That seems like the plan so far, along with the hope that a future Afghan army will help Karzai extend his power base.

[DanS]

Big news, for me.

Why is it big news? When the war ended, the US said it would put about $2 billion into Afghanistan over the next three years. This is the first installment. Here's a random article...

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/c7ca0eaf6c79faae852567af003c69ca/20cf17bd342e8d6ac1256cd300499a42?OpenDocument

Please note that these are US federal fiscal years, which begin in October. For instance, FY '03 is October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What would they have added?

Millitarily, little. Politically, a lot.

[Ted Striker]

"The only sector that seems to be downsizing here is you guys, the media," says Alberto Fernandez, spokesman for the US Embassy in Kabul. "All the news organizations are running after the war in Iraq, but the aid groups, the UN, the US Embassy staff, we're all here to stay."

For their part, Afghan officials say they are grateful for the continued attention of the world donor community. "The war in Iraq will not have any effect on what the US has already pledged to Afghanistan," says Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani Ahmedzai. "On the contrary, the US will intensify its assistance."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Millitarily, little.

Then what use would it have served to have granted thier request to be there if they would have, for all intents and purposes, just stood there.

Politically, a lot.

How would that have helped the foregone conclusion of the campaign and how is that purpose not being filled by the international peacekeeping force now?

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Clinton probably would have gone after them sooner, not having to have a debate in his government whether or not they should attack Iraq. The neo-cons actually argued that we should attack Iraq first. Clinton also would have brought our allies into the fight, rather than make them hold our tailcoats, even though they were begging us to let them join the fight. The entire world was outraged and wanted revenge on the Wahabbists, and Shrub blew it.

It was about a month later that we went in. What advantage would be gained from more speed? And how long do you think it takes to plan the operation and move forces around, anyway?

[Chemical Ollie]

I supported the Afghan war. I remember hearing on the news that Usama Bin Ladin declared war on USA in the summer of 2001. I think most people just shook their heads and thought "what a lunatic" and forgot all about it, then in September he attacked. That made the attack on Afghanistan a war of defense. It also had a massive support in UN and the world opinion.

The attack on Iraq, on the other hand...

[Uncle Sparky]

The old Solviets wanted Afghanistan an a stepping stone to a warm water port. The US wants controlled access to the oil in the new central Asian republics, with a pipeline through Afghanistan to Packistan. Islamist movements are being brutally supressed in Uzbek, Tajik, Kazhak and Turkmen all with assistance from the USA.

However, stabalizing the region will take far too long - much quicker to liberate Iraqi oil.

[Ted Striker]

I agree Sparky.

I can't wait to get my 50 cent gas.