What Should We Do In Afghanistan?

Pre-College Topics High School Life
1

<p>Hello future politicians, scientists, professors, doctors, lawyers...etc...etc...</p>

<p>Obviously this is an extremely complex situation. And as kids with a bunch on our plates already, we probably have a pretty limited understanding of what's going on.</p>

<p>But with what you know, what do you think we should do? Please don't throw out facts or numbers without actually knowing if they're true or say what your parents say over the dinner table. What do YOU think we should do?</p>

<p>From what I know and read, there are about 50,000 of our troops right now in Afghanistan. 100,000 international troops total. On top of that, add 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. And note that these Afghan forces are gradually increasing and they are being trained with the hopes that eventually they will be able to take care of this themselves. At that point, we would leave. Well, we already have a 12-1 advantage against the Taliban in terms of numbers. So why exactly are we still there, and would 40,000 more US troops really make that big of a difference?</p>

<p>And we also have to keep in mind that there are even bigger problems elsewhere. I mean, there's al-Qaeda in Pakistan, and then there's Iraq, and possible conflicts with North Korea. So sending 40,000 more troops would essentially deplete our military, and in any case of emergency we would have very few troops to work with.</p>

<p>In my opinion, it is not a question of numbers at all. And if anything, just increasing the number will not end the war and it'll just create more resentment towards the US. It might even help the Taliban in their recruiting; they already use the drone attacks as their main recruiting technique. Increasing the presence of foreign military might just encourage more people to join.</p>

<p>I think we should focus more on protecting civilians and gaining the trust of the Afghans. And Time had an interesting article that pointed out that even "reintegration" is a possibility. The Taliban is broken up into many, many factions. And many fighters are former farmers and such that joined for economic reasons. We should offer a safe way out for these smaller factions, and by helping civilians I think we can reduce Taliban influence, thus slowing the rate of recruitment. </p>

<p>There's also the issue of corruption in their government, but honestly, we aren't doing too hot ourselves in terms of economics. We can't afford to spend so much on this because we have our own problems to deal with.</p>

<p>The Afghan forces already have about 200,000 if you factor in the police force. And they themselves outnumber the Taliban who are estimated to be at about 25,000. The issue is that they aren't trained very well. It's really a problem that they should be dealing with, but if we just leave now, all the work that was done would undoubtedly just crumble. And we can't force Afghanistan to do anything. They will only be strong if they themselves find their values and set up their own stable government with these values in mind. In 1776, we set up our government with OUR values in mind: republicanism, freedom, etc... The Taliban wreak havoc and create violence all over their country (there was this documentary/movie with a title that had Kandahar in it. I forgot the whole title, but I learned from it that they set landmines all over the place, disguise them as dolls, and when children walk over to grab them, their legs get blown off). The majority of citizens there are most probably unhappy with their situation. And once their own forces are strong enough, and the people are safe enough to express their opinions, they should deal with the corrupt government themselves.</p>

<p>If you don't feel like reading all of that, this is basically what I said: don't send 40,000 more troops. Focus on cutting Taliban recruitment by gaining the trust of the civilians by taking a more active role in their protection. Also, offer a safe way out for the insurgents that are fighting due to economic problems and such. Exploit the division in Taliban factions. And this is probably a given, but NEGOTIATE and have talks!</p>

<p>um this is a touchy topic and people tend to get upset with these discussions. So please no bashing or anything. And don't be afraid to say stuff. I was hoping this could be a learning experience and I could read what you guys have to say and we can all learn something.</p>

2

<p>First of all, we need to establish the purpose of why we are there in the first place. Honestly, I need clarification on this. Are we still searching for terrorists, or are we trying to rebuilt their society? I know that the country itself has a lot of problem; crime, suicide bombers, limited rights, etc. Perhaps another reason why we are there is because we take it upon ourselves to help out those in need, being one of the most developed countries. I don’t think that we should be persuading others to buy into our ideas though. What may work for our society may not for others. We need to attribute to the establishment of a government suitable for their society.</p>

3

<p>I think we SHOULD send the troops, negotiate and go for a strategy somewhere similar to the what helped the Sunni Awakening along in Iraq (I know the situations aren’t the same), e.g buying off warlords etc. </p>

<p>It’s worth it domestically because Afghanistan produces 80% of the world’s narcotic poppies. That alone makes this a potentially profitable war.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Much easier said than done. That’s what they have basically been doing the whole time.</p>

<p>I think the real problem is that a regional approach needs to be taken, not just a country oriented one. The insurgency problem will not be solved unless we take out Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq AND Afghanistan at once as havens, which obviously is not anywhere near possible. Thus, we should focus on nation-building and not counterinsurgency. (and thus a sunni awakening approach). </p>

<p>Pakistan in particular is a hard issue. We need their cooperation, and well, they’re on the brink of collapse. Luckily, I’m not in U.S military leadership, because I have no idea how we’re supposed to attack that.</p>

4

<p>First, Afghanistan has been a tribal society for thousands of years and has a tradition of being unconquerable (from Alexander the Great to the Soviets) but there are three main problems for “fixing” Afghanistan.</p>

<p>1) People will not been governed from Kabul until the government has both legitimacy (right to govern) and a monopoly on power. People will not help the government until it can guarantee the Taliban will never return. </p>

<p>2) Afghanistan has a tradition of being a tribal society and local warlords will not give up their power unless the central government robs them of their traditional power.</p>

<p>3) Afghanistan is inhospitable to counterinsurgency. There are few major population centers (unlike Iraq) that can be locked down and protected. Soldier must have small enough posts to protect the small population in a village but are too small to adequately fight off the Taliban.</p>

<p>BTW, Warts, the reason why Afghanistan has a bad government is because when Hamid Karzai was writing Afghanistan’s constitution, he purposefully gave himself a strong presidential post and stole the legislature’s power. He is also extremely corrupt.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>Every time an American soldier is wounded by an insurgent attack, round up 50 random civilians in the nearest town for summary execution. For every American soldier killed, the number goes up to 100. </p>

<p>The central Afghan government is to be abolished, as with any local autonomy. Government, tribal, and local leaders are to be detained without trial for an indefinite period of time. They will be held to ensure the cooperation of local residents, who will be moved out of the countryside and into urban centers under stringent martial law. Food will be rationed, and subject to price fixation by NATO forces. Any disobedience of martial law, or military authority will be met with summary execution. </p>

<p>I’m just being satirical, I just wanted to test the bounds of how much you guys are willing accept the freedom of speech.</p>

6

<p>That seems to be the problem with most countries facing a multitude of problems with war and the government’s possession of too much power. If only we could help set up a government that is beneficial to the people. While America is usually willing to help other countries in need, we tend to act in our own self interests. For example, we typically want something in exchange, whether that be power, oil, products, etc. We’ve supported some organizations and dictators in the past that did more harm than benefit for the majority of the people. Too much power in the government seems to just create too much of a gap between the elite and poor individuals of that society. However, I’m not sure if our support towards these countries is more of a benefit than a negative. Then again, I admittedly am not as affiliated with all of the events that we take part in within the world. Perhaps I need to start watching the news more frequently, though I’m not sure how credible the information would be, seeing as how the perception of the events would be biased.</p>

7

<p>Make love, not war.
Drop beats, not bombs.
Pop champagne, not brains.
Send texts, not troops.
Break dance, not hearts. </p>

<p>Hawks kill not only the snakes but also the mice. Remember that.</p>

8

<p>HitMan - Carzy isn’t necessarily corrupt, but his government definitely is.</p>

<p>Also, I would like to state that Afghanistan hasn’t and never will be conquered—the war will never be won. Afghanistan has no central government, which makes it hard for a country to take over. </p>

<p>Everything Hitman said was correct.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>I also need to point out that their 80% supply of the world’s narcotic poppies kill a lot more people (or at least ruin lives) than are dying right there right now. Pulling out is not a viable option, saying “make love, not war” is not the way to solve problems every time, though it may be the politically correct/ “hip” way to do it.</p>

10

<p>I honestly wish we can just drop our guns and “make love” (hehe) but unfortunately that’s not a possibility right now. If we just left, we would be leaving the Afghan forces alone and untrained, and they would probably be doomed</p>

11

<p>The Taliban and all those warlords in Afghanistan were created by America to counter the Soviet Union (google Operation Cyclone), and now they are going against America. Even now, the government doesn’t seem to get that when they create these tiny tools, they will ultimately go against them – that is what many warlords created in the war are doing now. The Taliban has all the support it does because America, a foreign power is fighting the war. The solution is to get out of Afghanistan, and then let history take care of Afghanistan.</p>

12

<p>//Make love not war.//</p>

<p>Sounds like good foreign policy right there mister.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>Whatever happened to fixing our mistakes?</p>

<p>Also, specifics? How do you exactly do that without things falling into chaos?</p>

14

<p>Make love not war…? Wow you’re SO ORIGINAL. I’m sure you didn’t just say that because it’s “cool” to say. </p>

<p>Anyway, I want to see a troop surge. It would be nice to withdraw our troops and leave but if we do so the country will fall into total and utter chaos. It’s a big problem. Yes, it would be nice to focus on building schools and helping civilians, but the Taliban will likely just destroy them again. We can’t leave until the root of the problem has been eliminated.</p>

15

<p>Bomb them? Tactical Nuke anyone?</p>

<p>But seriously now,</p>

<p>It is a tricky situation. Insurgencies are extremely difficult to remove, as the Russians found out in the 80’s.</p>

<p>There are really two courses of action:
-Send in significantly more troops, and really dedicate large amounts of manpower and capital to the war (Softpower and hardpower along with diplomacy)
or
-completely pull out and allow Afghanistan to become a failed state.</p>

<p>Anywhere in the middle will result in few results and a slow financial/resource drain. So, does America really want to win this war?</p>

16

<p>^As I have pointed out several times before your post, yes, for narcotic destruction and the obvious terrorism stuff.</p>

17

<p>I’m trying to figure out why Americans care so much about OTHER countries when our own country is doing bad? lmao.</p>

18

<p>withdraw + nuke imo</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>I withdrew from and nuked on your mom last night. I agree its a good idea. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The theory that Afghanistan would crumble if we left? Wow you’re SO ORIGINAL. I’m sure you didn’t just say that because it’s “smart” to say.</p>

20

<p>

hahahhahhahhh qfe nuked on yo mom last night</p>