Should the U.S. troops leave afghanistan ?.

Jihad is in the Qu'oran . Are you going to kill every Muslim ?.
Also Jihad is very well explained in Islam and NOT as explained by the Zionists and the neo cons .
Jihad is self defence according to all Muslim scholars that I read .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nonsense. The 9/11 Jihadists were Saudi. Jihad is linked to Muslim extremists who are to be found wherever Muslims are. Including the Bronx.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spidergoat: "It's already assumed that there will be American casualties, let's not act surprised and think it changes anything. "

StrawDog: "Why is this fight limited to AfPak/Iraq, there are Jihadists everywhere?"

-and why is it rarely addressed that our occupations are the primary motivator of resistance and terrorist recruitment, spidergoat?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that Muslims believe JIHAD is a duty when it is in self defence to defend their country, their religion, their family, their rights . As far as 9/11 is concerned.....well too many lies from G.W. Bush tell us about the supreme deception of all times .

 

A domestic response proportionate (to what we are doing to Afghanistan) in reaction to a crime in the USA would never have been so tolerated- if several areas of the USA were under martial law, cities destroyed, millions of refugees on the move, shattered economy, a civil/gang war re-ignited, etc all in response to the explosion in Oklahoma city. USAmericans would not abide such compounding of violence and destruction in our own streets. If we do not learn similar restraint and respect for justice in our foreign policy, the consequences will become truly catastrophic for our nation too.

 

Yes, self defense is the essential premise. But unfortunately given human nature, there are criminal elements who pervert Jihad for extremist purposes.
Sadly Mike, there are so many levels of deception, its like peeling an onion, and as the layers come off, one`s eyes are filled with tears.

 

Sadly, this mental comparison is not made by the average Joe Dirt. I am wondering if there is any positive potential behind Obama`s slow decision making?

 

After the US withdrawal we should expect some very hard-line factions ruling fragments of Afghanistan. We should also expect further terrorism. But we must learn restraint, and desist from the criminality of chasing terrorists with armies.

"I am wondering if there is any positive potential behind Obama`s slow decision making?"

None. Obama is failing as a leader on this issue. Us public opinion (including military personnel) would be firmly behind him, if the President articulated the reality of the situation and began an immediate withdrawal of regular forces from Afghanistan.

But the major responsibility for our inertia, and for our compounding failure belongs to the US citizenry: If we cannot muster the courage to be heard, then we are just the juggernaut shell of a democratic republic, incapable of intelligent collective change. This war is not Obama's fault, and it's not even GWB's fault. This is an ongoing disaster of our own ignorant and apathetic making as citizens in the USA, and a disgrace to democracy.

 

the thing is that if the US pulls out of Afghanistan without building up the country , as the US didn't after the Russia War then the US is asking AGAIN for nothing but deep trouble

the US just doesn't seem to LEARN from past mistakes

the US is the most powerful Nation on Earth but has the dumbest military strategy

whats with you people ?

 

What's with those of us who oppose nation-building campaigns is an understanding that in the modern world, despised foreign interventions inflame insurgencies and civil warfare. The modes of conquest and plunder that reshaped our world in centuries gone by are no longer feasible. People everywhere have learned the ubiquitous technologies (tangible and political) that are effective in disrupting and far outlasting uninvited foreign interventions.

The USA cannot "build up" Afghanistan, nor can we rule the world with a conquering empire. Shock and Awe are not what they were in ancient times. No more can a human army arrive like something from another planet, with incomprehensible, vastly-superior weapons and tactics. Invading armies have been receding as predictably as waves on a beach for many generations now. Permanent military mobilization is not competitive nor sustainable in the globalized, inter-dependent market. Such vulnerabilities of empire are becoming universally understood.

Thinking: "whats with you people?"

Reason.

-Tom Engelhardt​

 

Re: Matthew Hoh,

About 1/8th of his letter sound like American extreme-left talking points. But the other 7/8ths make sense. Given his background he is someone we should all pay attention to, because it is HIS reports (well, people like him) that end up in Obama's hands based on which strategic decisions are made.

We don't see the whole picture, because this is just one credible opinion, and I'm sure there are hundreds (or at the least dozens) of people with his experience and credibility in the field, with a potentially more positive assessment.

I remind you that the British chief of staff said pretty much the same thing -- that the western forces need to be in Afghanistan for 40+ years to turn the failed state into a country. And he said it is doable.

After reading this letter though, I'm going to give Obama even more slack than I was giving him before about his so-called "dithering" in Afghanistan.

 

otheadp: "I remind you that the British chief of staff said pretty much the same thing -- that the western forces need to be in Afghanistan for 40+ years to turn the failed state into a country. And he said it is doable."

To commit the USA to an occupation of Afghanistan was the political equivalent of writing a bad check: The political support for nation-building in Afghanistan was never there, and is declining steeply. The notion that the USA can somehow redeem or validate our investment by increasing our commitment has no reasonable merit. A 40-year occupation of Afghanistan ccould never be so agreeable nor sustainable as (for comparison) US troop presences in Post-WWII Germany and Japan, because the roles are entirely different.

This isn't anything subtle, or really debatable: Afghanis and USAmericans want this war to end now, and for the aftermath to be unraveled without a disruptive and vulnerable US military presence in the foreground. Like Vietnam, this has become a war without a realistic and logically-explicable purpose. And like Vietnam, Afghanistan's final status will only become settled after US forces depart.

Obama did not come into office rocking the military-establishment boat. In times of national insecurity, it's a delicate thing to openly examine the goals and limitations of ongoing military commitments. Although the powers of the Presidency have been inflated in recent years, they do not practically include the power to immediately halt military campaigns and satisfy our military and nationalist pride.

But there isn't going to be a 40-year occupation of Afghanistan. There will be a withdrawal of foreign forces there, a violent period of tribal warfare, and a never-ending threat of terrorism being planned and prepared for, within and without the many turbulent places in the world. Military invasions have proven counterproductive in counterterrorism. We are coming to recognize this reality in the USA, and to turn our focus on the many more effective methods of self-defense from non-state aggression.

The US-Afghan war is over. That is, all that can be achieved through justifiable U.S. military effort there was achieved several years ago. Now we're just negotiating in the USA with our own ruthless pride for the release of our hostage soldiers.

 

If the Taliban were in the UK for 40 years, would it become an Islamic state?

 

If they are more than 50% of the population ......then both Tony Blair and Brown will hang themselves in Piccadilly Street......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Obama just welcomed the coffins of 18 US soldiers killed in Afghanistan . He is following the same dark and stupid path of his preceptor G.W. Bush .
He called the war ther a war of necessity . Huh....what necessity Mr Noble Peace prize receiver ?!!!.

 

No, he's paying attention to the task of ending Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, which is a threat to peace. Bush largely ignored it.

More soldiers will die, that is to be expected.

 

That's an expected phenomenon. Fighting people usually gets them excited about fighting back. Why is it rarely addressed that terrorism is the prime motivator of counter-terrorism violence?

 

Christianity is the biggest terrorism in 2009 .
I can not waste my time with those who are racists, ignorant and politically blind, deaf, and dumb.
Who is killing whom by millions ?.
Who is destroying the lives of millions of innocent people ?.
Those who repeat the neo cons propaganda will never learn a thing in life .

 

The"extreme left talking points" made sense, too. As they have for many years now, regarding foreign military aggressions.

That is beyond the powers of the US military - barring genocide in the tribal regions, or something akin.

 

Quit asking stupid questions you don't want answers to. That's trolling. You routinely ask this and you've been answered dozens of times.