Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I don't believe we can ever "win" in Afghanistan--has anyone?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:23 AM
Original message
I don't believe we can ever "win" in Afghanistan--has anyone?
As long as the US has an active fighting force in Afghanistan (or any other nation), there will be active resistance to us. What is our "mission"? To contain the Taliban and Al Queda? The meddling in Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations has only increased the ranks both. Seriously, would the citizens of the US cave in to an "occupying" force? No, I believe that American citizens would resist until all foriegn nations were defeated. Hell, the Afghanis have just as many weapons as we do (non-military). Has the US learned from Vietnam? Or from the disasterous Russian occupation of Afghanistan? Our army can beat another army, but we're fighting a people there. No uniforms and no end to recruitment
Like crumbs on the counter of a dirty kitchen draw ants and roaches, so will the mere presence of troops draw "insurgents".
I do not mean to equate our brave soldiers to crumbs, or Afghanis to ants or roaches, but merely to say that until we remove the cause of the Taliban or Al Queda (which I believe is the presence and muscle of the US in the Middle East) we will be endangering the world and bringing home our troops in bags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rcrush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. No country in the world has ever conquered afghanistan.
Its a waste of time to try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. a tribal society dominated by men - warlords. been that way for thousands of years nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. What is there to win?
They've been punished for harboring terrorists. The people are not going to give up fighting us back. I don't see the point of going on. No one is searching fro Bin Laden. Wouldn't it be more productive to pull out and isolate them in the manner we did Iraq before we invaded that country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. You don't necessarily have to "win" to maintain the empire these days
Just kill the population down to a more manageable level. Made much easier when you fill the land with depleted uranium shells and deprive most of the people decent access to clean water, food, medical care, etc. etc.; and then the Taliban does. After a while the only people there are insurgents or Vichy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. All the "stans" are former provinces of the Mongol Empire.
Afghanistan, contrary to current wisdom, has been repeatedly conquered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDavy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. not the great armies of alexander the great; not the romans; not
the persians; not the indians or pakistanis; not the russians and we will fair no better.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. The British as well if I'm not mistaken. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Well actually...
During the 320s BCE, Afghanistan and the rest of the Persian Empire were conquered by Alexander the Great and became part of his empire, which empire fragmented after his death in 323 BCE as his generals fought for supremacy. A general named Seleucus carved out the largest Hellenistic kingdom, the Seleucid Empire, which included most of Iran and Afghanistan.

...

By 642 AD, Arabs had conquered Persia and invaded Afghanistan from the west, introducing Islam. Afghanistan at the time had local rulers called the Kushano-Hephthalites or Shahi, which were under the influence of the empire of Tang China, which had extended its influence all the way to Kabul. The Khorasani Persian-Arabs controlled the western and northern areas until they were conquered by the Ghaznavid Empire in 998.
The Arab forces did not conquer all of Afghanistan. The southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan remained independent, first as part of the Kushano-Hephthalite Kingdoms (from 565 to 870 AD), then as part of the Hindu Shahi Kingdom of Gandhara, which lasted until it was conquered by the Muslim Ghaznavid Empire in 1021 AD.

...

Mongol conquest (1200-1500)

Main article: Mongol invasion of Central Asia

Led by Genghis Khan, the invasion resulted in massive slaughter of the population, destruction of many cities, including Herat, Ghazni, and Balkh, and the despoliation of fertile agricultural areas. The country became a part of Mongol Empire. Ghazni was main base for the Mongol campaigns of India. Neguderis settled there under the rule of Chagatai Khans while most of Afghanistan was a part of Ilkhanate. De-facto of Chagatai Khanate Tamerlane, incorporated what is today Afghanistan into his own vast Asian empire. Babur, a descendant of Timur and the founder of Moghul Empire at the beginning of the 16th century, made Kabul the capital.

...

Afghanistan was divided from the 16th to the early 18th centuries. In the North were the Uzbeks, the west was under Safavid Persia's rule and the east was ruled by the Mughals and local Pashtun rule. In 1706, the Afghans (Pashstuns), led by Mirwais Khan Hotak decided to rise against the Persian Safavids. The Persians were expelled. In 1721 Mir Mahmud Hotaki, son of Mirwais led the Afghans in invading Persia. The Persians were defeated in the Battle of Gulnabad. The Afghans captured Isfahan (Iran) in 1722. Mir Mahmud became the Persian Shah. He began a reign of terror against his Persian subjects and was eventually murdered by his own troops. They selected Ashraf Khan as the new Afghan leader. He was able to secure peace with the Ottomans in 1727. However, in the next year, Nadir Shah of Persia launched a national revolt against the Afghan occupiers. He defeated the Afghans in the 1729 Battle of Damghan. Ashraf was killed the next year trying to flee back to Afghanistan. In 1739, Nadir Shah conquered Kandahar, and occupied Ghazni, Kabul and Lahore. After his death in 1747, the Durrani Pashtuns became the principal Afghan rulers. <12>

...


The second Anglo-Afghan war (1878-1880) was sparked by Amir Shir Ali's refusal to accept a British mission in Kabul. This conflict brought Amir Abdur Rahman to the Afghan throne. During his reign (1880-1901), the British and Russians officially established the boundaries of what would become modern Afghanistan. The British retained effective control over Kabul's foreign affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. We all know that ....
Afghanistan is hopeless. Obama is a very intelligent man and he has intelligent people around him. WHY does he continue this mess?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
9. Nobody is trying to conquer Afghanistan
We are not putting ourselves in the middle of internal fights. We are going after targeted groups and leaving the country to put itself back together. Afghanistan needs significantly more humanitarian aid which they are going to get from NATO, thanks to Obama. We are going to continue trying to increase Pakistan's security and solvency, along with NATO, the UN, etc.. And we, collectively, are also going to put an end to the people in that region who attacked us.

Funny how the cry from the left was "we took our eye off Afghanistan", until we got a President who put his eye back on Afghanistan, and then the cry changed to no war again. That's why nobody listened to the left on Iraq, they oppose anything the US does, despite their constant insistance otherwise. It's why they can't be the second party in this country, they're more ideological than the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Humanitarian aid is a positive thing.
But the "people who attacked us" had a reason. And as long as we continue to meddle in the Middle East, they continue to have a reason. Our armed forces, with warships in the Indian Ocean can strike anywhere in minutes. Having troops on the ground is a huge incentive for resistence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
12. The Russians were winning until we sent shitloads of arms to Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. The Soviets would still be taking casualties to this day even without the US arms
If they were still there that is.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
13. No, no one has won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
14. We already lost. Now, it's just looking for a "peace with honor" strategy to get out.
The President and Pentagon don't want to lose face in admitting it's a lost war, so they'll continue to pursue an obvious defeat as a matter of PR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-20-09 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
16. There is nothing to win, so why not get the fuck out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC