Should NATO continue to be involved in Afghanistan?

[Ron Earp]

Jeff Young and I were briefly discussing the US involvement in Afghanistan after breaking the TR8. It would appear that the US is going to increase her involvement in the region so this morning I spent some time educating myself about Afghanistan. While doing so I wondered what the forum consensus would be on the Afgan involvement issue, so, here is a poll.

Now, I know this question might be hard to answer because as far as I can tell the mission in Afghanistan is not clear cut. There are many opinions as to what NATO and the US (I know the US is a member of NATO but often it seems the US directives don't align with NATO's) should be doing in the region so this poll basically gets to the root question of "should we or should we not be involved in Afghanistan" and that means on any level - from peace keeping to outright war.

 

[Jack]

Nope!

 

[David Morton]

Definitely not.

 

[Jim Craik]

No, no, no!!!!

 

[Jeff Young]

I had hoped we had learned our lesson in Vietnam, as the French did in Algeria. You can't "nation build" by supporting a corrupt regime that does not have the political will and popular support necessary to stand on its own.

I voted for Obama but the thing I am disappointed the most in with this President is the failure to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing good - other than more fuel for the Islamic militant fire and increased influence by Iran in the Gulf -- comes from it.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

No! Destroy the poppy fields and leave.

 

[Steve C]

Drill here, develop all alternate energy sources especially Nuclear so we can move to Hydrogen fueled cars and get out of the middle east all together, tighten our borders and get serious abouteradicating radical Islam within our borders.

 

[Julian]

As far as the poppy fields go, its a case of supply and demand, destroy the fields in Afghanistan without curbing demand and they'll pop up somewhere else. The money is better spent on cutting off the supply routes across our borders.

The US/NATO involvement just gives the various factions/tribal leaders a common enemy instead of killing each other. I'd prefer they just keep killing each other, its Darwinism at its best.

Now where's that damn index thingie.......

 

[Ivan]

IMHO while our armed forces are over there keeping the taliban etc busy, they are not busy over here.

my heart goes out to all our soldiers etc, they are doing a extreme job far from home, keeping us all safe and for that they have my thanks and eternal gratitude.

 

[Jack]

Ivan, While I totally agree with you in principle, Julian has the better answer IMHO.

 

[Marcus]

Definitely yes!

There is no choice really. Forget about childish stuff like poppy fields or a corrupt regime. With the Taliban threatening and destabilising the in-itself weak nuclear power of Pakistan from their bases in Afghanistan the international community has no choice but to combat the Taliban right there on the spot. That´s what it´s all about, nothing more, nothing less. Who would like to see the Taliban in posession of the bomb? That is, what makes the Afghanistan mission far more serious than Iraq (or Vietnam for that matter...). Even if it might last for decades, as said, there is no real choice. Deal with it.

As for the tragic losses of soldiers: Unbelievably sad and tragic. Been in the Army myself. But they are grown up men and women. They made their choice when they joined the Army and not the Boy Scouts. And the taxpayer doesn´t pay them for sweeping the parade ground.
Calmly waiting to get flamed.

 

[Chris Simpson]

Now, I know this question might be hard to answer because as far as I can tell the mission in Afghanistan is not clear cut.

You bet the mission in Afghanistan is not clear cut. I have spent over an hour today entering a dissertation into this thread as to why we should get out, but not immediately and the system lost it when I went to "Preview Post" - asked me to log in although I was already logged in. Has happened to me before. Anyway, I am not going to do it all over again at this time. However I would just comment on Marcus' statement that the military know what they are signing up for and should just get on with it. I have served in the Army also. The military know full well that they might be asked to undertake missions which could result in the loss of their lives. They do assume however that the objectives they are asked by the politicians to achieve are clear, unambiguous and in the interests of keeping their fellow citizens safe. The trouble with the situation in Afghanistan is that the objectives given to the military are constantly changing and no longer appear to be in the interests of keeping the ctizens of the NATO countries safe. This in turn leads the military to wonder what the hell they are doing there.

Chris

 

[Scott Calabro]

I particularly enjoy viewing the nuclear cannon.

Detonations - vce.com

 

[Bob Fechter]

Irregardless of whether or not you support this war, I hope we can all agree that the President MUST either support his troops or get them OUT.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Marcus "forget about childish stuff like poppy fields" ? They are the best weapon the Taliban have against the world. Obviously you have never experienced the sight of a human being dead with a needle hanging out of his arm.

 

[Ron Earp]

I have to say that this poll result is a bit different than what I expected from the forum based on the timbre of many of the threads. Interesting.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

More votes than posts might explain it.

 

[Ron Earp]

Well, you can only vote once regardless of if you post or not.

 

[David Briggs]

I don't think that our Military has a clear mission in Afganistan.
Our purpose was clear in 2001 and we went in and rid Afganistan of Al Queda but the idea that we have to stay and prevent another Regime change is not working out.
If the Afgani's don't like the Taliban they can toss them out just like they did the Russians and all other invaders in their past.
They might need our help with weapons and training but they don't need us to fight for them.
IMHO

 

[Pat Buckley]

This is not a winnable war - the Russians discovered this a while back.