<"See, that's the problem. You're still seeing it like a military victory problem. An effective police force means that crime is minimized, and that criminals are captured quickly and dealt with. It does not mean crimes never take place."

Well, I really don't see that my asking what might be the conditions under which we can get our youth out of harms way is the problem, but so be it. Or suspecting it's a military operation when the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are carrying it out and Rumsfeld is giving the press conferences with Pace and Stufflebeam in their uniforms.

Oh, my freakin’ god!!

“... get our youth out of harms way ...”

Definitely! How noble!!

After all we’ve done to date, let’s just pull out and let everything fall back to as it was. What a great reward for the efforts of our youths we’ve placed (note that not a one of them volunteered for this) in harm’s way. You see, that way we can send in a whole new crop of kids in about five years.

That about takes it, bow-bow-Bowser. You have absolutely no idea where you’re going in this, so maybe the best place would be out.

At this time, we are in an occupation strategy, and the best one we’ve pulled off in a LONG freaking time. Can we just revel in that for a day or two? Our move to Afghanistan was perfectly paced, was an ease to endure, and an unquestionable success. We’re in. We’re securing. We’re training an interim national military force. We’re doing fine.

OK, we shift from a military presence to a police presence? And if the local police force doesn't really care about capturing the guy who drops that round, or can't find him, or both, US policemen go for them?

If, if, if, if. Oh, if only...

Try an “if not” some time. What if everything works out perfectly? What do we do then? What do we do with a peaceful Middle East and an Afghanistan that stands as a strong U.S. ally? What do we do?

Both those conditions are more than likely in Afghanistan.



Or do we try to install a central government which is committed to the same goals as the US government? And trust these folks to have a police force which will enforce conditions favorable to US interests? We had a long, long time to do that in the Philippines, and wound up with as big a kleptocracy as history has seen, and one that threw us out of the country.





Kleptocracy is not a word. Just call it an illegally operated government. I’m not very big on Limbaughlogy (also not a word, btw).

I don't think that will work in Afghanistan. The Taliban would have been eradicated except that the Northern Alliance let 'em go.

The Taliban defeated the Soviet invasion and was looked upon as heroes. While the people cheered and felt better, the Taliban tightened their grip on the population, and weeded out the troublemakers with quiet “ethnic cleansing.” There was no revolt because there were no revolutionary leaders around whom to rally. Those leaders are now returning to the light of Afghanistan, and the revolutionaries are taking their place at their side. Afghanistan will win, and their will be no Taliban repeats.

"A mortar round is fired, troops are deployed, and the mortar firing criminals are eliminated. It never ends, but the criminals are dealt with as they arise. What else can you do?"

As for what I'd do, off the top of my head my inclination would be to let 'em shoot each other, and not let 'em shoot my people. Period. I'd let 'em fight it out the way they have for the last 2,000 years and not stick my folks in the middle. And I for damned sure wouldn't let them export anything hostile to my country. I'd "profile", I'd search ships off-shore, I'd have intelligence that wouldn't quit. Any Asian who could present credible information regarding a credible plot against the US would get a reward which would allow them to retire almost anywhere in Asia they would like.

That’s probably why you’re not there making the critical decisions over how to rebuilt a leveled government.

I'd watch my borders, not theirs. All the September 11 terrorists had a history, left a trail, and could have been picked out. No one has the right to cross our border, and no one not a citizen has the right to stay within our borders. I'd have folks proving they hadn't been in an al-Qeada camp, not require my folks to prove they had. I'd use our military to be sure the US was secure, not try to USA-aform foreigners who have no interest in, inclination for or understanding of a Western style government.

Maybe.

I’m glad to see your 20/20 hindsight is still intact, though your view of what true justice is remains at about 200/200.

It looks like a huge bed of quicksand to me, and I'm concerned we could wind up losing a lot of innocent American lives without a return. The British couldn't make it in Afghanistan, the Russians couldn't, and while I think the US could, the cost in terms of money and lives would be both high and endless. And I for sure don't want some two-bit Afghani with a mortar dictating American foreign policy.

More like a huge bed of drying concrete. They couldn’t make it in Afghanistan because they were lacking in U.S. support. As it stands, the warlords of Afghanistan are pitifully supplied, relying on old stockpiles of decades-old munitions, much of it hazardous just to move, let alone use.

The dangers remain, but that’s what the military faces on a daily basis.

Cheers,
Dan