Thanks geep, I had you pegged as some kind of dittohead, but you've shown yourself to be better. There are tons of issues to cover in this thread, so I won't laundry list anymore posts, but I do have a few things more to say.
Quote:
|
The Taliban was the government in Afghanistan, and now it is gone.
|
Now this is simply not true. I'll link the Asia Times article again.
US turns to the Taliban
"According to people familiar with Afghan resistance movements, the one that has emerged over the past year and a half since the fall of the Taliban is about four times as strong as the movement that opposed Soviet invaders for nearly a decade starting in 1979.
The key reason for this is that the previous Taliban government - which is dispersed almost intact in the country after capitulating to advancing Northern Alliance forces without a fight - is backed by the most powerful force in Afghanistan: clerics and religious students."
We couldn't find anyone there we trusted to run the country, or that could. There's an ongoing debate in the military about exit strategies, or how to end wars. (Naturally, there are always lots of ongoing military debates, but that's beside the point.) The argument goes, our current war games lack the scope necessary for real world operations. We can fight, but the games end too soon to figure out what happens next.
Advocates of change can turn to Operation Iraqi Freedom to make their point. We came and kicked some ass, but now we can't see very many moves ahead. The population isn't necessarily hostile, but they aren't in any hurry to cooperate with US troops. The mechanized infantry divisions on the ground aren't well suited to the task at hand. If the battle, as one commander commented, was not the one they war-gamed, their current mission was probably not ever extensively planned, and certainly not what was expected.
Lateline interview with Dr. Harlan Ullman, military strategist
And an excerpt:
DR HARLAN ULLMAN: "That is the question because I think for the time being the situation is not going to get better, it's going to get worse.
The US does not have a terrific record at peacekeeping.
It's something we don't do particularly well and if you take a look at places like Yugoslavia or Somalia or other places where we have been engaged, until there is political order, until there is control of chaos, until there are jobs, until there's some kind of social stability, things will be very difficult for the US or any occupying power."