Is Counterinsurgency the Right Path in Afghanistan?

Reader Comments
Back to article

Just leave!!! Get out!!! we are the occupiers. This is another Vietnam. I voted for Obama, but if he does not get out of Aghanastan, myself and a lot of Dmeocrates will vote for a liberal candidate that will get us out

Mark Drebin of FL 4:53PM October 30, 2009

Securing Afganistan? Look at history -- 1980's USSR, and keep going back for 6,000 years. It cannot be done in Afganistan. Just nuke them and be done with it.

Mohamed Alah of DC 3:17PM October 29, 2009

While generally in support of the United States military, a counterinsurgency strategy sounds like...well...gambling.
Managing groups of people is much like herding cats, let alone adding in the additional variable of a whole new coalition (well, at least you hope they work together!) of people to turn against troublesome elements.
It sounds like a recipe for more uncertainty and chaos.
Having supported the efforts of the offensive in the past, isn't it about time closure was brought to this entire effort? We (the US, that is) seem to be spinning our wheels, yet getting nothing done.
There needs to be a Middle Eastern version of NATO to handle regional affairs so that superpowers no longer has to play Globocop.
We (meaning the US) cannot afford this anymore.
Figure out a workable strategy, or get us out already. It's time. And this from a strong supporter of past efforts, too! Everyone is getting tired of the endless war that won't be won. And it's stretching the US military thin.
: (

Armchair Strategist of IL 1:17AM October 29, 2009

Given our economic decline, I think that the best course would be to pare down the megalomaniacal goals of Bush's politically correct Judeo-Evangelical Crusade against Islam to the minimum acceptable goal, which is our security.
1. Our biggest security problem is not the Taliban, who are basically wifebeaters, but our open borders. If 13,000 illegal aliens can enter each day, we are at the mercy of bin Laden. It is by choice we have not had a rerun of 9/11, I suspect. Were not Washington pro-illegal migration, this could be done on the cheap by ending anchor baby citizenship; making an example of some businessmen who brazenly hire illegals; ending benefits, sanctuary cities, and promises of naturalization, DREAM act, etc. The fewer people sneaking into the country, the easier it is to control entry. I suppose this is impossible due to Washington's support of illegal migration.
2. End Moslem immigration into the US. I suppose this is impossible because political correctness is our highest national value--far higher than national security. Diversity, you know.
3. Our Crusade in Afghanistan is made difficult by our one-sided support of Israel, which is a bit unjust, and by our politically correct values. Fundamentalist Moslems see our campaign as a war against Islam and an occupation, and they have a good point. It is Israel and their ally against the Palestinians and their allies, the terrorists. Our contempt for fundamentalist Afghan culture, burqas, forcing them to elect 30% women, etc., just make our task more difficult.
A fairer Middle East policy and abandoning our highest national value of political correctness are two more non-starters.
4. So we are left with an underfunded quagmire in Afghanistan. Years, or more probably decades, to go. Shinseki was probably accurate that it take several hundred thousand soldiers to do an adequate job of securing a country the size of Iraq or Afghanistan, and we can't afford that.
Yawn.

Linda Re of KS 1:08PM October 27, 2009