Posted on 02/03/2019 3:29:27 PM PST by Kaslin
Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker sums up in a single word the recently announced framework of an agreement between the United States of America and the Taliban: Surrender.
“This current process bears an unfortunate resemblance to the Paris peace talks during the Vietnam War,” writes Crocker in a Washington Post op-ed. “Then, as now, it was clear that by going to the table we were surrendering; we were just negotiating the terms of our surrender. The Taliban will offer any number of commitments, knowing that when we are gone and the Taliban is back, we will have no means of enforcing any of them.”
He’s not wrong.
The “framework” is simple enough: the Taliban promises not to allow terrorists to launch attacks from Afghanistan and U.S. troops leave.
It may seem strange that, after successfully toppling the Taliban government, a savage regime that mistreated the population and gave safe-haven to Al-Qaeda to launch its 911 attacks against us, we would now, nearly two decades later, be anxious to cut a deal with that same Taliban, accepting their good word and even trying to bring them into a power-sharing role in the rickety government.
Anything to get the heck out of Kabul and back to the good ol’ USA?
It is a recognition, clearly, that the Afghan government is not only currently unsustainable, but unsustainable for the foreseeable future. Since he took office in late 2014, 45,000 members of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s security forces have been killed. All while the most recent reports show the government losing its grip on nearly half the country.
“There is virtually no possibility of a military victory over the Taliban,” The New York Times editorialized on New Year’s Day, “and little chance of leaving behind a self-sustaining democracy — facts that Washington’s policy community has mostly been unable to accept.”
Nation-building has failed, is failing and will continue to fail in the future. Why else negotiate with the opposition?
There is an alternative, we are told: Keep a significant contingent of U.S. troops in Afghanistan...forever. Or until we have fashioned a brand new westernized-Afghanistan that is no possible threat to us.
“Winning may not be an available option,” contends a new RAND report, “but losing . . . would be a blow to American credibility, the weakening of deterrence and the value of U.S. reassurance elsewhere, an increased terrorist threat emanating from the Afghan region, and the distinct possibility of a necessary return there under worse conditions.”
Some of those reasons are the same misguided rationales for staying so long in Vietnam. Some are newly misguided.
Who wishes we were still fighting in Vietnam? Didn’t we “win” the Cold War less than 15 years after the fall of Saigon?
Instead of negotiating with the Taliban, let’s get it straight in our own collective national head that we cannot be a country militarily occupying other countries until they become “redeemed.” This is especially true when we realize they will never reach that exalted status.
We cannot do it to those who volunteer to be a soldier for us. Let occupation force participant get zero help wanted listings; our kids can go into another line of work.
We cannot remake Afghan culture and society through military force followed by money and experts, just as we could not make South Vietnam into a nation able to repel the North.
And we cannot fight everybody’s battles for them.
Or can we?
“As long as they aren’t taking many casualties,” argues Washington Post columnist Max Boot, “the public isn’t opposed to their deployment.”
Boot identified past cases in history in which wars and occupations lasted for a century or three, one being the 100-year British excursion into Afghanistan and Pakistan. He added that “U.S. troops are volunteers.” How that is supposed to factor into one’s moral compass per their possible future death or maiming, was left unspecified.
We had a good reason to go to war in Afghanistan. But having set up a new government and assisted it for nearly two decades, we now lack a good reason to stay.
Bring our troops home...with care.
I agree. Get our troops out of there.
Give Max Boot and Ryan Crocker a rifle and a napsack.
They can carry the flag for us.
The Afghanistan withdraw is at least 16 years over due.
“There is virtually no possibility of a military victory over the Taliban,” The New York Times editorialized on New Year’s Day,“
Sure there is. We simply lack the political will to do what’s necessary.
L
The “framework” is simple enough: the Taliban promises not to allow terrorists to launch attacks from Afghanistan and U.S. troops leave.
HAHAHANBBAHHHA you believe the people who want to kill ALL kafirs will honor that HHAHAHAHAA. Dolts.
The French had an insurgency in southern Morocco and the Sahara with the Tuareg that lasted almost 40 years and cost over 30,000 Foreign Legionnaires their lives. It ended right after WWI, when the French gassed the tribes who continued to resist.
That pos former occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Barack Hussein 0bama, the worst president ever could have brought the troops home and ended the war in Afghanistan. So don't beach about President Bush.
Mao Tse-tung, echoing Sun Tzu, said “It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed”. So, war is a continuum and not a dichotomy. The guys in utilities won the Vietnam War twice (Tet and March 1972), but the folks in suits constructed defeats. Wars are not won absent political resolve. The resolve has been lacking in Afghanistan.
No. There is no good reason to ever have gone into the ME at all, much less Afghanistan. Let the neocons like this arrogant armchair warrior hump a rifle. Putrid cowardly warmongering scum.
Yep. Saudi nationals kill 2,000+ US civilians slaughtered and GW goes into Afghanistan. Never could figure that out. Our parting gift should be plowing the poppy fields and sow with salt.
September 11 attacks United States [2001]
Shame on you.
You hump a rifle then.
This clown is an idiot. Go read the history of Russia in Afghan. Our military had all of 16 weeks of training on average prior to Vietnam. So why the hell train the Afghans for 17 years. Screw Afghan and nation building. Special Forces does an area study and yes, two SF teams jumped in with the northern alliance and Karzai’s punks. Then US regular units came in. What a screw up. Tell me your BS.
or....... kill taliban by the tens of thousands.
or....... kill taliban by the tens of thousands.
Afghanistan is the poster child for a bomb and leave policy for neanthedal middle east countries. Reign destruction on them when they misbehave.Never commit troops to rebuild and leave. They hated us before we bombed, they will hate us after we rebuild and they will hate us after we leave.Better to be feared than loved when it comes to these barbarians.They will know what will happen if they do it again and hopefully they will just return to killing each other
There is always the Erik Prince strategy to try.
Get big multi-nationals to develop the valuable minerals (and any other profitable business). Have them hire serious mercenary units for security. Provide professional mercenary support to the pro-American central Government (like the Saudis and Emiratis use), with support from a much smaller US Military commitment, that provides high tech and high firepower support.
The economic development would give them the resources to pay their own Military and Police, and buy off Taliban supporters - most of whom are just in it for the money.
Jacob is not for staying the course in Afghanistan for ~100 years, as Max Boot and the late Sen. John McCaine wanted us to do.
He's saying it's time to leave.
Do you disagree with that?
We should have left in one year or so after two SF teams whipped the Taliban.
How are we going to prevent a sovereign Taliban government from importing nuclear missiles and blackmailing the USA? Suppose they demand, “admit 100 million Muslims or we are taking out your largest cities, and we will rejoice if our fellow Muslims get to meet Allah early.”
Are we willing to bet any of our cities on this not happening?
If we find out in time before any missles can be launched, will we have to go back in to stop it at much greater cost?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.