Fareed Zakaria today on US approach in Afghanistan...

[KB]

Hard to fault his logic.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#...-world-3-4.cnn

[Soldat_Américain]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#...fghanistan.cnn

The problem is we screwed up by not putting 100k on the ground by January of 2002, and also not making sure that we were the strongest tribe. We have continuously tied our hands by not allowing our soldiers to fight. We have shown through continuous apologies that we are not the strongest tribe, we've shown we are weak.

The Taliban has remained the strongest tribe.

[Popsiq]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#...fghanistan.cnn The problem is we screwed up by not putting 100k on the ground by January of 2002, and also not making sure that we were the strongest tribe. We have continuously tied our hands by not allowing our soldiers to fight. We have shown through continuous apologies that we are not the strongest tribe, we've shown we are weak. The Taliban has remained the strongest tribe.

Intel has it that Taliban 'tribe' now numbers over 12 000 active fighters, more than ever since 2002 when they were 'on the run' in the hundreds. You could have put a million boots into Afghanistan, and even if every one of them was a fighter, the problem would still remain. You're NOT Afghan, you don't 'get' Afghans, and they hate your effin' guts - all of them, even the 'nice ones'. The best chance for success was the original idea of "reconstructing" a country devastated by war. The Russians developed the place, and what they set-up lasted until the US sponsored mujaheddin started fighting each other and annoyed the Pashtuns. That won't be an issue this time as any positive aspects of the mission got lost in the pre-government stabilization bang-bang and turned into a dirty joke.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Intel has it that Taliban 'tribe' now numbers over 12 000 active fighters, more than ever since 2002 when they were 'on the run' in the hundreds. You could have put a million boots into Afghanistan, and even if every one of them was a fighter, the problem would still remain. You're NOT Afghan, you don't 'get' Afghans, and they hate your effin' guts - all of them, even the 'nice ones'. The best chance for success was the original idea of "reconstructing" a country devastated by war. The Russians developed the place, and what they set-up lasted until the US sponsored mujaheddin started fighting each other and annoyed the Pashtuns. That won't be an issue this time as any positive aspects of the mission got lost in the pre-government stabilization bang-bang and turned into a dirty joke.

I tend to agree with you.

Retrospectively, I don't think there was any "golden BB" solution and that the US should have limited involvement to SOF and CIA from the beginning, or at the very least kept involvement as minimal as possible.

As it is now it seems likely that all will be for not and that the only victory will have been killing OBL (and he wasnt even in A-Stan) as well as killing scores of Al-Queda and Taliban.

The terrible cost is well-documented.

[Dexx]

I don't like the term history tells the lesson so much, because each time n history has different circumstances. But Afghanistan has bee like this for hundrets of years. What conquering force could hold Afghanistan without coming to the conclusion that it is not worth the effort and the money? They either fight themselves or unite against occupiers.