Afghanistan Prediction

The Left currently loves to use the war in Afghanistan as a political hammer to bludgeon the Iraq war and Bush. If only we weren't bogged down in Iraq, they say, we could send more troops to Afghanistan and fight the real enemy that attacked us. But mark my words: As soon as the Iraq war winds down (and it will during the next president's term, regardless if it is Obama or McCain), the Left's supposed enthusiasm for the Afghanistan war will dissipate quickly. As Rich Lowry put it, right now they want to focus on losing one war at a time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25728546/

Hi Randall,

If you are suggesting that the Dems , in Congress have decided to let the practical override the moral, then of course you are correct. Afghanistan is convenient for them right now, and the second it is not, it will be ignored. I don't think more than a couple Dems in Congress care about the outcome of the war in Afghanistan except insofar as it allows them to win more Democratic seats.

Seems to me that need to rent Charlie Wilson's war and possibly go take a look at some of those mountains OBL is hiding in.

I wouldn't put more troops in, I'd pull them out and watch known terrorist sites by satelite 24/7. We have a stockpile of cruise missles and bombs if I'm not mistaken.

Sheik, you are absolutely right. Another point that I will make is that I think we need to adjust our expectations of what Afghanistan and its people are capable of becoming. Iraq, at least, has the potential to be a mostly normal country. Afghanistan doesn't have that potential. It is a rugged, almost post-apocalyptic, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome place where war has been a way of life for millenia. It doesn't have the capacity to be "normal" or truly peaceful anytime soon. That doesn't mean we should withdraw our troops and hand it over to the Taliban, but we should keep in mind that the American military is likely to be in Afghanistan long after Iraq has calmed down (or imploded).

Why should we keep troops in Afghanistan Randall? Wasn't the objective OBL and not the removal of the Taliban? I mean, if BO's agenda is to remove the Taliban and install a democratic government, how is that any different then Iraq?

We should keep our troops there because the moment they leave, al-Qaeda will reconstitute a stable base (as they are trying to do in Pakistan now). Bush and Obama both share the same agenda for Afghanistan: Deny the Taliban and al-Qaeda the sanctuary of a nation-state and establish a stable, democratic, pro-Western government. I'm just saying the stable government part might be more feasible in Iraq than it is in Afghanistan.

If we do as you say, Afghanistan will be where we keep troops for 100 years, not Iraq. At least Iraq is winnable and we do have vital interest there. Not so in either case with Afghanistan.

No matter what we do, there is always going to be somewhere for terrorist and terror organizations to find sanctuary. What we need to so is focus on intelligence and when we find a group or training ground somewhere, take them out with no thoughts or regrets, not occupy every state that harbors terrorist.