The Numbers on Afghanistan

Re #1 Hmmm. . . a real, no kidding spammer. Swell. . .Your numbers, while correct, do not tell much of a story and in fact, may be a bit misleading. We had the darn thing pretty much under control until we went after Iraq. There’s pros and cons about that, but good or bad, we took our eye off the ball. So, while we’ve been there 9 years, for the bulk of that time it was simply a less than effective holding action. Now we are back at it and hopefully, we’ll get it done quickly, though I doubt it. As demonstrated by the ROE, the American people no longer have the stomach for doing what needs to be done to win a war. . .

I suppose one could say that these new questions were implicit in your original post. . . I chose to focus on the written points.I spent a long time in the service, though it was a long time ago. It breaks my heart to see even one of those brave young men and women wounded, let alone killed. But you can’t pacify a place like that humanely without boots on the ground (if you can do it at all). And if you are going to fret about every civilian who get killed, you are doomed from the start. If Afghanistan is a threat – and I believe it is – then victory is defined as removing the threat. We have the power to do it by remote control without serious risk to life and limb – but it would be ugly.The problem is that unlike with WWII, we have somehow absolved the civilians of responsibility for the actions of their governments and their neighbors. We feel this obligation to determine whether it is a goat herder just carrying an AK for fun or a Taliban soldier. I’m not suggesting that we be purposely indiscriminate, but we need to be serious about this. And if a house full of enemy die, but their wives and kids die too, Americans freak out. The military brass freaks out. And fear of it is tying their hands and killing our young people.So I guess the bottom line is this. We need to eliminate the threat. It’s unlikely that we are willing to do what it takes and anything less doesn’t seem to be worth the cost. The caveat is, of course, that if we don’t eliminate the threat – the cost could be very high indeed, couldn’t it? Remember, Islamic extremists don’t have scruples and compassion tying their hands like we do. . .so even if we try to walk away, they may simply follow us and move the battle space from their country to ours. Your post and your reply both imply that we have a choice. I’m not sure we really do.

livefreeordie2 says that “generals” and the “public” are inhibiting victory by worrying about civilian casualties. But as Petreus explains, counterinsurgency strategy depends on winning the local civilians to our side. Killing civilians causes shifts to the Taliban, thus undermining the whole effort. It’s not just an unfortunate side effect when civilians are killed, it undermines the basic strategy.Chuck Kleinhans

Mark, I usually enjoy your columns, but this is so completely unrelated to the scope of the Chronicle that it almost feels like a troll posting, designed to get a more-heat-than-light discussion thread going. Surely there are more appropriate places to discuss this if you’re in a mood for it.

This is Bauerlein at his best – and his best is writing extreme right-wing trash in accordance with the sure-fire election success plan devised by Carl Rove. It is a simple but sinister plan. Throw out some unsubstantiated numbers, wild predictions of doom, and impending disaster. Target your doomsday rhetoric directly at the extreme right wing element of the party (so as to secure or anchor the base) then take your crisis message out to the angry, undereducated, poor, minority portions of the population. Add in any previously unanticipated populations who emerge in reaction to current conditions, such as those now frightened by the economic state of the nation and its impact on their personal survival. And of course, target the newly emerged “tea party” hysteria where uncoordinated colonies of people are literally running around in circles looking for some direction and solutions to ease their fears. But alas, in steps Bauerlein who pledges to his extreme cronies that he will do his part to advance the cause of fear and confusion in outlets where he can openly throw gallons of gasoline on the fires of distrust, worry and discontent. I hope most readers will see the personal insult Bauerlein levels at Chronicle subscribers. He apparently believes that a good number of us are warm to and supportive of the extreme right wing of his beloved party. While I have openly admitted in the past that I am a Republican – I am not a supporting member of that wing of the Party who has been in power and who now seeks to regain it by means that I will never embrace. America has always been at its best when its elected representatives were comfortably situated in the Middle. Much more got done and it was “the country first”, the party last. That is what I will work for and will continue to denounce the disgusting extremes of both major parties. It’s time for America to get reintroduced to the Middle. Extremism will not serve to reunite our great country. Incidentally, for new Chronicle readers, be informed that on a previous occasion Bauerlein reported in his Braincramp Article, that the Fox News Netwark was the finest in the World. That was either a very poor attempt at humor, or a clear indication of how distorted his reasoning is. Reader Beware.

How interesting to read these comments and have such a completely different point of view.1. I have never been to Afghanistan and I do not know any Afghanis, have never met an Afghani. As far as I know, the people of Afghanistan have not ever done anything to the United States of America. They produce a lot of heroin. If this is a US import problem, I firmly believe that modern western nations should make their own drugs to sate the appetite of their populace and treat the situation as a medical problem. Provide the drugs, tax it, and require treatment. This is quite poignent considering what has happened in Mexico due to the US appetite for drugs. The USA needs to own the trouble they make for other countries that manufacture recreational drugs for US consumption. Repeat. It is a heinous situation for citizens of Mexico and US border cities.2. Therefore, why is the US in Afghanistan? A. I have a vague notion of a natural gas pipeline? B. The humane notion of wanting to civilize / culturally update the Middle East. (so we bomb them with pilotless drones to achieve this?) C. Feed huge sums of money to the military / industrial addiction, must have an “enemy” to rationalize sending so much… GDP to military / industrial.3. Let’s get to the real point: the attack of September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden did what? No. Here’s how I see it: Rumsfeld even refered to “When the missile hit the Pentagon and the plane was shot down over Pennsylvania.” What does that leave? It leaves Dick Cheney in a bunker giving stand-down orders to the US Air Force, this witnessed and testified to by Morn Minetta to the US Congress. What else does this leave? Three demolished buildings, WTC 1,2 and 7. I do not know what you see, I see three building demolished high-tech with high-explosives. Masterfully achieved, very high tech. I then see a Mockingbird (look it up) coordinated information campaign where suddently every US news outlet is broadcasting the exact same echo-chamber story to the US citizenry.Here is the point, until the US can see through this mockery of reason, the public mind will continue to be deranged / broken.4. livefreeordie2, You ought to be ashamed. The writers of the US Constitution advised against wars of empire in foreign lands.Have a good day, p_e

#5., “Success” in Afghanistan = a Walmart and a McDonald’s. Maybe a Sam’s Club. Add: Comcast, and certainly Monsanto can juice-up their cows with high-yeild hormones and antibiotics and maybe find some Afghan seeds to colonize, change the DNA, own the patents, start the lawsuits against Afghani farmers who refuse to use them. At the risk… of continuing… if Monsanto monopolized the poppy crop, at least people would be smoking the Monsanto products instead of eating / drinking it…

For supposedly being academics, able to provide intelligent and logical discussion; the article with its following discussion is naive, partisan and uninformed. Here is a website to fix your lack of knowledge on the subject.http://www.nps.edu/Programs/CCS/index.html

I don’t want to be nasty about it, but wading through Willynilly’s critique, I realized he had to be talking about something else. He says Bauerlein’s plan is to write “. . . extreme right-wing trash in accordance with the sure-fire election success plan devised by Carl Rove. It is a simple but sinister plan. Throw out some unsubstantiated numbers, wild predictions of doom, and impending disaster. . . .”Bauerlein’s entire post: July 7, 2010, 09:50 PM ET The Numbers on Afghanistan By Mark Bauerlein How much money does the Afghan war cost each month? $6.7-billion How many American lives lost? 1,000+ How long will it last? Nine years and . . .That’s nine lines, counting the date and time. I’m still searching for unsubstantiated numbers and wild predictions of doom and impending disaster. Can someone help me find them?

livefreeordie–You think “victory” will come with using more of “the stick”–didn’t the Soviets already try that? And how did it work for them?Chuck Kleinhans

In the USA students are taught that the US defeated the Germans in WW2. Outside of the USA, students are taught that Russia defeated the Germans in WW2, paid a heavy price and got the job done. If you get a chance in an online discussion, ask anyone from Europe about this. You may be surprised…. so the mighty Russians could not tame their neighbor Afghanistan.

#23. Please reconsider your plea to nuke Iran on the premise that they are willing to attack and in return have their country destroyed. You state “suggest that they weren’t hand in hand with Bin Laden during the period before and after the 9/11 attack would be a stretch.” This is understandable due to the information that has saturated your official medias, but if you wish to consider this issue outside of media-consumer-caste, there is considerably discussion among military lifers / operational officers re: what happened that day and who did what. This discussion is dynamic and developing. The issue is not going away. The “instant bin Laden” anecdote, which was launched on camera before even twelve o’clock noon the same day is not part of the discussion. The mighty “bin Lade” was used as a propaganda object. You may wish to note that the response to the event, response being to invade Iraq, had zero to do with the initial propaganda despite the stimulant effect resulting in lots of citizens with “bin Laden” target stickers on the back window of the their pickup trucks, etc.It has been noted that attacking Iran would serve to distract from the current building momentum re: who did what on the day you reference. So, stay tuned for the next “Pearl Harbor” this time the remedy being to attack Iran. PS Have you ever met any Persians? They’re very nice people.