The war in Afghanistan is not over

I opined in another thread that we weren't doing squat for the Afghans, that we were prepared to see them starve. I got a bunch of responses about opium poppy production in Afghanistan, apparently a satisfactory excuse for those responding for letting the Afghans starve. Personally, i doubt that nation-building can be accomplished in a region long accustomed to internecine strife, and fighting the outsider. This is not an issue for most Americans, i would sadly suspect, as their attention is focused on the Shrub's latest foray into international diplomacy . . .

I think, Americans should not attempt building nation in Afghanistan: this is an impossible mission. The USSR has already undertaken such an attempt in '80s, and the result is well-known.
The main objective of occupation of Afghanistan was to remove the Al Qaeda facilities from this country. This mission was accomplished more or less successfully (I say more or less, since bin Laden managed to escape).
The further task must be reduced in assuring that he will not regain refuge in this country any more: this can be done by means of coming to agreement with both Kabul government and the tribal leaders (aka "warlords") in the provinces. Such agreements may be promoted by means of financial aid. And after this Afghans should be left alone: let them build their nation themselves (if they want to do this). Unless the Afghan leaders support international terror, in direct or indirect ways, no intervention into their affairs is recommended.

perhaps if 'nation building' didn't mean making a little america (or soviet union), things would be better. We can't just go in, bomb the hell out of the place and leave without helping. That would be barbaric.

"That would be barbaric." yeppers and so it goes.

Odd isn't it we hear little about Afghanistan these days. In fact I heard on the news the President has not mentioned Osama for over six months. There was a brief bit in the Fort Worth Star Telegram about this last week several pages back from the front page.

Streissd is correct I think and I think the same applies for Iraq and Iran, these countries did not exist until after WWI, they people of these lands still have tribal allegiances and nothing can be done about that. The US is in my opinion entering into an arena that will be twice as vial as Viet Nam and the price we pay will be more terrorism in the US and not in the battlefields of the Middle East.

GWBush is successful in diverting our attention elsewhere. The sad part of all this is the short memory of most Americans. Such sweet words were spoken about how we would help Afghanistan rebuild their country. The war there isn't even finished, and GW wants to start another one! I just wonder what his plans are for North Korea and Iran? c.i.

Is any one else reminded of how WWIII started beside me? In my opinion our only hope is that China steps in and stops this mess before it gets started.

>And after this Afghans should be left alone: let them build their nation themselves (if they want to do this).

Very well said. Such words as "the Americans failed to build an Afghan nation" sound ridiculously - the Americans failed to do that they should do in no way and that they actually were never going to do. How can you fail smth what you are not doing?
----------

>The war there isn't even finished, and GW wants to start another one!

I rather more surprised that he has been waiting for so long. Bush gave Saddam almost a year to stop his nuclear program. Seemly Bush really tried to avoid the war in all possible ways.

----------
>Is any one else reminded of how WWIII started beside me? In my opinion our only hope is that China steps in and stops this mess before it gets started.

The China's main participation in the WW3 was their help to Bin Laden to develop his attacks on the WTC. You may be surprised but Bin Laden also called his actions an attempt to stop America. Do you consider these attacks as a good way to stop "the mess"? And who really started it?

Joanne, Iraq is a different thing. Let us say without resorting to euphemistic rhetorics: oil is a strategic asset not only in terms of the corporations' revenues. Oil prices have heavy influence on the world economy. France, Germany and Russia attempt by means of support of Iraq to have their share of control over the global oil market (Russians do not need Iraqi oil for domestic consumption, they are oil exporters themselves, but control over this resource outside Russia may give them enormous geopolitical gains). If the USA wants to remain the world's largest economy and to retain her leading positions in the world, it must prevent these countries gaining control over second largest world resources. Policies of President Bush serve to the most important strategic interests of the USA, therefore they cause vigorous opposition of the Europeans.
And, of course, Saddam is surely, a dangerous tyrant, whose policies make it impossible to establish peaceful coexistence of different countries in the Southwest Asia. Regime makes attempts to develop WMD including the nuclear weapons, and it must be replaced.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, it's still not over.

Well, the Russians were there for 10 years....



Seriously, do you really think that the US is going to do some Nation (re)Building? That would be desirable (and honorable & non-barbaric & whatnot)...but really. Name one nation that the US has warred with/against and help rebuild successfully.

You have forgotten about the Marshal Plan after WWII that helped Europe rebuild.