i may be late here but i was reading up on barack obama's campaign pledges and one was to pull out of Afghanistan by 2014 and was wondering what the escapist opinion on this was?

personally i think that it is unthinkable to pull out by 2014 for afew reasons...

1. when you ask almost anyone in the military (at least the UK guys ive spoken to and the top ranking military officials i see on the news, the US seams to be allot more anti Afghan from what ive read online) they want to stay in longer and the reason they give is that if we pull out by 2014 it will be a blood bath, all the different groups will probably fight a huge civil war just like when the Russian's pulled out, destroying all the work done by the solders who died (and were injured) there especially if the taliban/mujahadin win, which is very likely as they have allot more weapons and have allot more experience fighting wars than the ANA or any small tribes that oppose them.

2. america has always had a reputation of going into another country shouting "FUCK YEH MERICA!" destroying the place and leaving it in a shit state and not caring about the consequence's of its actions (see iraq) and this is not the reputation that it wants, American society as a whole seams to be very in favour of remaining independent and not worrying about international affairs as opposed to being the world police and as much as i support this at least finish what you started instead of turning round on the Afghani's who supported them and who they promised to help and saying sorry we dont give a shit about you anymore, you were useful to us but we got what we came for and were getting out, try not to get killed by the taliban/mujahadin because were not protecting you anymore

3. winning in Afghanistan would be very simple if politician's would allow the army to use more resources, its a very simple strategy that needs to be implemented which both american and British generals have been wanting to use for ages
1. capture territory
2. hold that territory and consolidate pushing the taliban/mujahadin back further (repeat until they have no ground left and are destroyed)
3. convince the locals we are on their side, this is done by building schools, hospitals, roads providing internet access and reading books and instead of hating use they will like us (much in the same way the Romans defeated the British guerrilla's almost 2000 years ago)
4. put in place a good government (as opposed to the flimsy Karzai joke of a government) and ensure it has a good army, police force, education, medical services, basically everything a government needs to be successful

as opposed to what most troops do in Afghanistan now which is capture territory but not have enough infantry to hold it and get shot at by RPG's, small arms, snipers and mortars on a daily basis while primarily sitting in defensive basses which is textbook how to lose a guerrila war and very bad for morale (but they have no choice as they do not have enough infantry to hold the ground they work hard to win)

the reason why this isnt being done already is because to do this the army needs enough troops, air/armour support (especially helicopters) and resources to build said buildings (and engineers) but all these things are expensive and a expenses the politicians dont want to pay which is sad because both solders and civilians are dying almost daily due to lack of military funding and that just doesn't sit well with me, when you go into a war you have to go in not holding back and go in to win as quickly and efficiently as possible and if youre not prepared to do that you really shouldnt have gone to war in the first place because going into a war half heartedly and/or overconfident is the best way to lose (see Vietnam)

notes
1. sorry for the wall of text i know some people dont like them, i tried to be brief but this a topic that really needs doing justice and is one i can literally talk about all day

2. i call the taliban the taliban/mujahadin as a fuck you to the american and British government as they supported the mujahadin and even gave them weapons such as SAM launchers and training and that group evolved into the one currently fighting british and american troops but the governments re-branded them as the taliban to avoid looking bad

/edit sorry ive posted this in the wrong place can a mod please move it to the religion/politics forum

shameless bump: seriously guys this may be the wrong forum but does no one here care or have a opinion on the war Afghanistan? I was expecting a bit more than 50 views and 4 votes, is that all the attention the war gets nowadays? because if so its no wonder why were not winning the war if people dont give a shit about it

this is the escapist...
considering that, i'm more surprised you'd even think this was the best site to rally concern for it. i'm not saying it's not important. but surely there are more appropriate forums out there for seeking out passionate discussions on subject?

I think your post is hilarious for several reasons, but most of all due:

xSKULLY:
3. winning in Afghanistan would be very simple...

(see Vietnam)

A level of naiveness on serious issues that always makes me smile. Capture and hold might be doable with extra taxes on america (you know, like war taxes) but that is NOT going to happen, same to reconstruction. Pushint the guerillas to a choke pont? Are you nuts? You realize Iran and Pakistan share more than 1000 miles of border, right? You remember that Iran is not a US friendly country and that Pakistan goverment can't openly oppose the taliban ATM right?

And assimilating Afganistan to the US culture like Britannia? Lolz, sure, if you are willing to spend a Israel level budget for a couple of generations.

Nup, the best you can do is GTFO and hope they won't be organized enough to do terrorist cells against you or nuke them to the stone age and hope the islamic world won't mind.

Yes and No.
Yes because i don't think we should have been there in the first place, we're also wasting billions(if not more?) on military funding that isn't winning us anything and more importantly we're also wasting lives, both on our side and also civilian.

Also we don't really have any clear end goal, it would literally takes decades to change Afghanistan culturally from its tribal system to a proper democracy.

But also No because as much as i hate the fact that we're at war. I wouldn't want to have some arbitrary date when everyone leaves regardless of the situation.

For one it would mean everything sacrificed so far would have been a waste (although that doesn't mean there aren't times were cutting our losses and running would be a good thing)

And also if we left it could destroy the country economically or leave a power vacuum that would make things ten times worse for those who live there.

I'm not an expert, really my only concrete opinion is that we should never have been there.

Also i think you've really underestimated how hard "winning" would be. Literally none of your suggestions are feasible.

The whole Afghanistan fiasco was shameful and disgusting. If we pull out in 2014 we'll be thirteen years too late.

"Convince locals we're on their side"? We're not on their side. We're there to leech their resources. Since when has it been necessary to slaughter thousands of civilians in order to bring "democracy"? The same "democracy" we have?

Edit: There have been approximately thirty thousand civilian deaths in Afghanistan as a result of this war for oil, and all people can say is "I can't believe we wasted our money on this"? You think money has been the biggest waste? That's absolutely disgraceful.

xSKULLY:
3. winning in Afghanistan would be very simple if politician's would allow the army to use more resources, its a very simple strategy that needs to be implemented which both american and British generals have been wanting to use for ages
1. capture territory
2. hold that territory and consolidate pushing the taliban/mujahadin back further (repeat until they have no ground left and are destroyed)
3. convince the locals we are on their side, this is done by building schools, hospitals, roads providing internet access and reading books and instead of hating use they will like us (much in the same way the Romans defeated the British guerrilla's almost 2000 years ago)
4. put in place a good government (as opposed to the flimsy Karzai joke of a government) and ensure it has a good army, police force, education, medical services, basically everything a government needs to be successful

3 and 4 are how you win against insurgents and guerilla warfare. 1 and 2 are how you win against regular forces, and are, at best, useless against insurgents and guerilla warfare. People accustomed to fighting conventional war often try this, and it causes all sorts of problems.

In conventional warfare, territory, terrain is the key to victory. You take the best land to take land to take land to take land. With a guerilla warfare, it's the people. You take people to take people to take people to take people.

For this, it is vitally important to understand the people the way that conventional warfare demands you understand the terrain. This is where things get fucked up. People make assumptions about people, try imposing their cultures onto them, refuse to understand and co-operate, forcing them to support any hostile force that bothers to turn up.

It is even more important to recognise that you aren't fighting a conventional war...refusing to play by the right rulebook just doesn't work.

Tanakh:
I think your post is hilarious for several reasons, but most of all due:

xSKULLY:
3. winning in Afghanistan would be very simple...

(see Vietnam)

A level of naiveness on serious issues that always makes me smile. Capture and hold might be doable with extra taxes on america (you know, like war taxes) but that is NOT going to happen, same to reconstruction. Pushint the guerillas to a choke pont? Are you nuts? You realize Iran and Pakistan share more than 1000 miles of border, right? You remember that Iran is not a US friendly country and that Pakistan goverment can't openly oppose the taliban ATM right?

And assimilating Afganistan to the US culture like Britannia? Lolz, sure, if you are willing to spend a Israel level budget for a couple of generations.

Nup, the best you can do is GTFO and hope they won't be organized enough to do terrorist cells against you or nuke them to the stone age and hope the islamic world won't mind.

1. i didnt say it would be easy just that its what should be done and what the generals want to do but are not given the resources to do so.
(also modern armys can cover huge amounts of ground and although 1,000 miles is allot it is very doable, also supporting the pakistan army would be a priority as they would have to pin the taliban/mujahadin in place so US forces can destroy them.

2. we dont need to give them our culture just improve their lives so they see us as good guys not bad guys, i dont see how building them school's and hospitals is turning them american (in fact in the few instances were this has been done its been successful)

3. nuke them? do you have a death wish or something, what kind of dream world do you live in were america can nuke a fucking country kill millions of innocent civilians and hope no one minds

thaluikhain:

xSKULLY:
3. winning in Afghanistan would be very simple if politician's would allow the army to use more resources, its a very simple strategy that needs to be implemented which both american and British generals have been wanting to use for ages
1. capture territory
2. hold that territory and consolidate pushing the taliban/mujahadin back further (repeat until they have no ground left and are destroyed)
3. convince the locals we are on their side, this is done by building schools, hospitals, roads providing internet access and reading books and instead of hating use they will like us (much in the same way the Romans defeated the British guerrilla's almost 2000 years ago)
4. put in place a good government (as opposed to the flimsy Karzai joke of a government) and ensure it has a good army, police force, education, medical services, basically everything a government needs to be successful

3 and 4 are how you win against insurgents and guerilla warfare. 1 and 2 are how you win against regular forces, and are, at best, useless against insurgents and guerilla warfare. People accustomed to fighting conventional war often try this, and it causes all sorts of problems.

In conventional warfare, territory, terrain is the key to victory. You take the best land to take land to take land to take land. With a guerilla warfare, it's the people. You take people to take people to take people to take people.

For this, it is vitally important to understand the people the way that conventional warfare demands you understand the terrain. This is where things get fucked up. People make assumptions about people, try imposing their cultures onto them, refuse to understand and co-operate, forcing them to support any hostile force that bothers to turn up.

It is even more important to recognise that you aren't fighting a conventional war...refusing to play by the right rulebook just doesn't work.

1 and 2 are a vital step as at the moment the taliban/mujahadin still own allot of territory and have built things like recruitment centrer's, training area's and bomb factories on it, pushing them put of this land is a key step or they will constantly attack the towns while were trying to help the local's which doesn't work well

xSKULLY:

thaluikhain:

xSKULLY:
3. winning in Afghanistan would be very simple if politician's would allow the army to use more resources, its a very simple strategy that needs to be implemented which both american and British generals have been wanting to use for ages
1. capture territory
2. hold that territory and consolidate pushing the taliban/mujahadin back further (repeat until they have no ground left and are destroyed)
3. convince the locals we are on their side, this is done by building schools, hospitals, roads providing internet access and reading books and instead of hating use they will like us (much in the same way the Romans defeated the British guerrilla's almost 2000 years ago)
4. put in place a good government (as opposed to the flimsy Karzai joke of a government) and ensure it has a good army, police force, education, medical services, basically everything a government needs to be successful

3 and 4 are how you win against insurgents and guerilla warfare. 1 and 2 are how you win against regular forces, and are, at best, useless against insurgents and guerilla warfare. People accustomed to fighting conventional war often try this, and it causes all sorts of problems.

In conventional warfare, territory, terrain is the key to victory. You take the best land to take land to take land to take land. With a guerilla warfare, it's the people. You take people to take people to take people to take people.

For this, it is vitally important to understand the people the way that conventional warfare demands you understand the terrain. This is where things get fucked up. People make assumptions about people, try imposing their cultures onto them, refuse to understand and co-operate, forcing them to support any hostile force that bothers to turn up.

It is even more important to recognise that you aren't fighting a conventional war...refusing to play by the right rulebook just doesn't work.

1 and 2 are a vital step as at the moment the taliban/mujahadin still own allot of territory and have built things like recruitment centrer's, training area's and bomb factories on it, pushing them put of this land is a key step or they will constantly attack the towns while were trying to help the local's which doesn't work well

You can't push them out while they have local support though. You can blow up a bunch of buildings, kill a number of them, but if they have popular support they just set up somewhere else.

Remove the support and they become almost irrelevant.

Phlakes:
Did you know that a massive amount of teachers here in Texas were laid off this year because we can't pay them? And that the state has stopped paying for part of AP test fees to cut costs? And, I don't know, maybe the fact that our national debt is in the trillions?

Is keeping our dick in Afghanistan really worth it?

the real question you should ask is if you can afford to leave, there are things much more important than money involved (like the reputation of the US, the long term stability of a whole country, the lives that will probably be lost when america pulls out, the possibility of terror attacks continuing in america and more)

to be honest american and british could've won the war already if they went in with the correct strategy and resources (like the generals including the head of the S.A.S advised the politicians but the politicians ignored them) but its the refusal to commit resources which has led to a long drawn out and expensive war

thaluikhain:

xSKULLY:

thaluikhain:

3 and 4 are how you win against insurgents and guerilla warfare. 1 and 2 are how you win against regular forces, and are, at best, useless against insurgents and guerilla warfare. People accustomed to fighting conventional war often try this, and it causes all sorts of problems.

In conventional warfare, territory, terrain is the key to victory. You take the best land to take land to take land to take land. With a guerilla warfare, it's the people. You take people to take people to take people to take people.

For this, it is vitally important to understand the people the way that conventional warfare demands you understand the terrain. This is where things get fucked up. People make assumptions about people, try imposing their cultures onto them, refuse to understand and co-operate, forcing them to support any hostile force that bothers to turn up.

It is even more important to recognise that you aren't fighting a conventional war...refusing to play by the right rulebook just doesn't work.

1 and 2 are a vital step as at the moment the taliban/mujahadin still own allot of territory and have built things like recruitment centrer's, training area's and bomb factories on it, pushing them put of this land is a key step or they will constantly attack the towns while were trying to help the local's which doesn't work well

You can't push them out while they have local support though. You can blow up a bunch of buildings, kill a number of them, but if they have popular support they just set up somewhere else.

Remove the support and they become almost irrelevant.

true both are needed in equal measure to succeed

xSKULLY:
to be honest american and british could've won the war already if they went in with the correct strategy and resources (like the generals including the head of the S.A.S advised the politicians but the politicians ignored them) but its the refusal to commit resources which has led to a long drawn out and expensive war

Not an expert, but IMHO, if you want to win in Afghanistan, the trick is to not simultaneously fight a war in Iraq, dividing your resources and costing you your international support.

I'd also agree that you can't simply pull out without the whole thing falling apart.

xSKULLY:
true both are needed in equal measure to succeed

Well, yes, but I'd say that removing the support leads to the removal of the military threat. Attacking the military threat hasn't proved that effective the other way around, and it can be easily replaced.

Just because the audible troops are being pulled out doesn't mean the presence of U.S. Intelligence operatives and Special Forces operators would be pulled as well. They are picking off troops from the safety of their hidey hole mountains, and convoys are easy to bomb.

Spec Ops and the CIA were doing just fine before somebody decided dropping infantry was a fantastic idea...

I don't feel i'm qualified or knowledgeable enougn to make insightful observations about the afghanistan war, let alone if we "should" pull out or not.

But I'll say this: pull out and all those people who have been supporting the coalition and helping it....Yeh they are gonna get absolutely destroyed if you pull back, and leaving would create a massive power vacuum which will be sure to be filled by those you've been fighting.

Skully. Stop trying to be an armchair general. You've no clue what is involved in "winning the war" aside from what the news tells you.

Does it really matter when we pull out?[1] We're going to end up in another country someway or another, just depends on how much. I'm not saying that as a "F-U AMERICA YOU SUCK!!!" POV, just stating out facts, that since the US became the only superpower, they've had troops on the ground/area in just about every country where that's wartorn. If I had to guess, I would say Somalia would be next

xSKULLY:
i may be late here but i was reading up on barack obama's campaign pledges and one was to pull out of Afghanistan by 2014 and was wondering what the escapist opinion on this was?

1. when you ask almost anyone in the military (at least the UK guys ive spoken to and the top ranking military officials i see on the news, the US seams to be allot more anti Afghan from what ive read online) they want to stay in longer and the reason they give is that if we pull out by 2014 it will be a blood bath, all the different groups will probably fight a huge civil war just like when the Russian's pulled out, destroying all the work done by the solders who died (and were injured) there especially if the taliban/mujahadin win, which is very likely as they have allot more weapons and have allot more experience fighting wars than the ANA or any small tribes that oppose them.

While I disagree with the initial invasion of Afghanistan while simultaneously campaigning in Iraq, I acknowledge that pulling out of Afghanistan now would be a complete disaster. Iraq for the most part is a war won. Infrastructure is back up (mostly), a ruling government is managing its affair with agreeable efficiently and while rogue factions are still present, they are on the run, desperate, and no longer capable of directly engaging either coalition or government forces with any chance of success.

Afghanistan is not far behind, but it's going to take at least 5 more years in my mind. Armed militant groups are a shadow of their former power. Anyone reading the news with a rational mind could clearly deduce this; groups have attempted to attack exposed civilian targets, most of the fighting is restricted to southern regions, firefights are brief between less than 40 combatants at a time.

All these are hallmarks of decisions made by forces that have their back against a wall. Make no mistake we are in the final stages of the 'war' and we have every opportunity to finish the job. Coalition fatalities during the whole period have been less than 3000 for the whole war which is significantly less than Vietnam (58,220 American dead).People also seem to forget that wars just like Vietnam and Afghanistan have been fought by western powers before and won. The best example of this is the 'Malayan Emergency' which ran its course from 1948-60. Thus Coalition success could very well be decided on whether they try to actually adopt the Anglo-British/Australian mindset of 'hearts and minds' instead of their poor interpretation that they instituted in Vietnam.

Guerrilla conflicts are long drawn out affairs, they require a specific mindset, extensive cultural engineering and a willingness to continue on despite the costs; which in hindsight are tiny in comparison to traditional warfare. Just like Vietnam, the States and her allies are not in any position to actually 'lose' this conflict in any sense of the word, unless they decide so. Vietnam wasn't lost because USA couldn't compete military with the communists, they lost because pulling out was a presidential candidate made election promise.

Also bear in mind that Afghanistan has been in more or less constant civil war since 1978. If the coalition pulls out without finishing off the militant factions and creating a successful Afghan ruling government the country descend in anarchy . And the idealized kind. The southerners will massacre the norther peoples in their thousands.

Ympulse:
Skully. Stop trying to be an armchair general. You've no clue what is involved in "winning the war" aside from what the news tells you.

are you kidding me? ive looked into the war in Afghanistan allot as im very aware that 1 day i might have to fight in it and all the stuff ive said about how to win the war is what high ranking generals in the american and british army (allot of it comes from the head of the S.A.S some one wh i deeply respect and is one of my role-models) and also from UK solders and officers who ive met in person, many of which fought in the war and saw how it is first hand. also a secondary source is looking at military history and seeing nations that have got into similar situations and what they did then judging how successful it was

i may not have fought in the war and i may be sat on a comfortable chair in a comfortable house but i know what im talking about

I don't like putting dates on when we say "we win" and leave. You can go ahead and make a date if you feel like it (I still discourage it) but if you have to tell the date, don't say it 2 years in advance.

I have the feeling that this is going to be changed.

I honestly don't care anymore. It just pisses me off. We spent way too much money to go into two countries neither of which had the guy we were looking for. We went from a 7.5 trillion dollar surplus to a 18 trillion dollar deficit. WTF

Yes we should keep in mind the history of backing out of a country we helped decimate. One of the reasons Osama bin Laden was so pissed at us was because we helped them with the war I believe that was against the soviets, but never bothered to help them with the aftermath. This was funny enough in Afghanistan.

Still one of the large reasons the debt is so high is because of the war. I don't blame the politicians they wouldn't support something that wouldn't get them vote. I blame the people for their continued support in it. It also doesn't help the fact that congress is all excited about saving 350,000 dollars a year.

-face palm- I am so tired of it all. If I pulled shit like this I wouldn't have a house to live in.

No matter how much money and resources we drop into Afghanistan, and no matter how much we try to "civilize" it, it will always resort back tribal feuding and clan warfare.

I'm putting in my prediction right here: When we pull out, the ANA will hold the country together for 3-4 years (just like the DRA did when the Soviets pulled out), then the country will collapse, with the ISI helpping the taliban with financial and logistical backing. It could get interesting: China could get involved, as they would have ALOT to lose since they bought up hundreds of properties for mineral mining in Afghanistan, which would become useless if the country fell back into anarchy. India too might get involved since Afghanistan's economy has been given a huge boost by Indian trade, as well as the political leaders of both countries have warm relations with each other.

We'll have to see, but Afghanistan's government will definately collapse if left unsupported.

I'm afraid I haven't really read the whole thread... but my views on pulling out of Afghanistan are the same as they were Iraq.

Our countries went in and destroyed what little stability and infrastructure those countries had.. as much as we may morally disagree with what they were, it is our fundamental, moral, responsibility to fix what we messed up.

Regardless of cost, our reasons for doing or, or our "noble" intentions, we should foot the bill for ensuring every building we bombed is repaired and the infrastructure put back in place. We should also consider ourselves responsible for ensuring a proper security force, police force, and government is put in place that can handle itself after we leave.

We should do this.. as is apparently our goal.. according to the democratic wishes of the people.. even if those wishes are a group of people who will turn around and bomb our countries and murder our people.

Fraser Greenfield:
People also seem to forget that wars just like Vietnam and Afghanistan have been fought by western powers before and won. The best example of this is the 'Malayan Emergency' which ran its course from 1948-60. Thus Coalition success could very well be decided on whether they try to actually adopt the Anglo-British/Australian mindset of 'hearts and minds' instead of their poor interpretation that they instituted in Vietnam.

Malaysia was a very different evironment, as it was against communist guerillas who had very little support to begin with. Yes, the poverty was a issue that resonated with the average malaysian, but as the story has shown, it was a very easy problem to overcome by the British military and local administration, who tackled the problem with financial aid and military outreach to communities.

Afghanistan has had a isolated, self-sufficent, traditional, clan-based society since the beginning of recorded history. It is apart of the Afghan national identity (sans metropolitan areas, of course), and since the Taliban arose from this type of society, it will be familiar to the rural clans and families.

Hearts and Minds does still work in this environment, and it is being used by the US special forces in the Panjshir and other hotspots of the resistance, but i think this one is unwinnable with the current amount resources allocated (we'd need more troops to shut off the borders and money to build up infrastructure, not to mention the hundreds of bribes needed to pay off the clans in the South and the opium industry)

(You mentioned Vietnam was a poor interpretation of hearts and minds. I beg to differ, as the Green Barets worked wonders in Southern Vietnam, setting up villages to be self-sufficent, capable of defence, and even hunting down Viet Cong in their sectors. Considering these were once bastions of the Viet Cong, this became a absolute victory, in my opinion. Sorry off topic.)

I'd like to draw people's attention to how much the US actually spends on maintaining its ridiculously large military forces, both in the homeland and internationally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

Look at the table: Total outlays by budget function, and imagine the good that some of those funds could do for america. Jobs lost within the armed forces could be diverted to other, more productive areas of american society.

I write with no authority, and very little first hand experience of the issues involved, but don't you think that a country whose military budget is ten times that of any of its other essential departments could be doing better for its citizens.

Redirect funds from international interventions and America, and probably a lot of the middle east, would be a whole lot happier.

xSKULLY:
3. winning in Afghanistan would be very simple if politician's

1. You do not use an apostrophe to make a word plural.

2. You do not use an apostrophe to make a word plural.

3. People always make it out to be simple, whatever "it" happens to be at the time. A good rule of thumb: If you think it's simple, you're probably missing something. Maybe a lot of things.

The reason this isn't being done, among other things, is cost. All those things like air support and armour? They cost money. The US is spending a fuckton already, at a time where spending is a serious issue over here.

There is also the fact that Afghanistan is notoriously hard to "hold," historically all-but-guaranteeing there will be a blood bath no matter when we pull out. What you are suggesting, in essence, only works so long as we're planned to commit to a Bush-era permanent structure.

Given the above, you are asking countries to throw good money after bad, and more to the point, lives. If we are to throw resources at a problem, there should be a viable and foreseeable outcome that is significantly different from the one if we don't.

4. It looks like your summary of what the generals want is to fight a traditional war against a non-traditional enemies. This is a pretty solid recipe for failure.

The Poll needs to be specific.

I think America has it's own shit to sort out and I don't think remaining in a war which has cost so much to the locals, the US government/public, and the soldiers is a positive.

I don't think the UK, Australia, or New Zealand should pull out (although NZ are pulling out).

We can afford the financial expenses of the conflict and the servicemen (don't know any female defence personnel personally) I know who've been there think that we're making a difference.
That said of my mates who've been over, none have been injured.
I also think that leaving is a dick move, by going in and leaving we'll have made it worse than never going at all.

I expect I'll be serving in Afghanistan as some stage and I won't be finished training until 2020.

To clarify some points, I'm an Australian/British Citizen living in Australia who's in the process of applying for the Aussie Defence Force as a Medical Officer, so even if Australia isn't still in an active combat role, I'll likely be in Afghanistan in a hospital for civilians if nothing else.

Edible Avatar:
[...] a issue [...] a isolated, [...] It is apart of the Afghan national identity [...]

Your profile says that you're American. I can only assume you're either Bilingual or that English is your first language.

As such:
[...]an issue [...]
[...]an isolated [...]
It is a part of [...]

If it had been one typo I'd have left it, but your argument (while quite good) was undermined by your grammatical errors.
I'm not trying to be a dick (although I'm sure I'm coming across as one anyway) and I don't expect you to proof read your posts for mistakes. But consistent grammatical errors irk me.

Its always amusing to see someone who thinks the US can still "win" the war in Afghanistan.

What is your master plan? Are you going to outlast people in their own country? Not going to happen.

The damage is done, just get out now before you fuck up even more in Afghanistan and ruin your own country in the process. Your reputation? Ha! As if you have any reputation left to ruin.

I think we kind of have to leave. We went there with a plan that can best be described as half-baked and we've been there for over a decade. The victory criteria could vaugly described as "make Afghanistan a proper country" which is mental.

It's sad though and the negative impact of the conflict on Pakistan has been very unfortunate. Especially in light of the fact they still keep beating us at cricket, although we did rinse them in the 1 day international.

Ah well. They've probably gotten used to corruption and totalitarism over there anyway.

Should you pull out? yes
Will you? unlikely.

xSKULLY:
i may be late here but i was reading up on barack obama's campaign pledges and one was to pull out of Afghanistan by 2014 and was wondering what the escapist opinion on this was?

I'm an American citizen who lives in Colorado Springs; a heavy military community with some of our country's largest air force bases, army bases, etc., here. We're surrounded by "Fort this" and "Fort that" ... I'm also a civilian who has never served in the military nor have I ever had any interest in serving my fellow man that way.

Most of the military men and families I talk to here want to get out of the war; they're tired of the deployment and they don't see anything getting done there. In the words of one of my younger Army friends, "I don't think it matters if we pull out in 2014 or 2024; it's not going to make a difference to these people who have been living this way for thousands of years and absolutely hate us being there."

I tend to agree with him. Personally, I don't think the US has the stomach for this war anymore. We got Osama already, 9/11 was over a decade ago now, we can't afford the military deployment anymore and most importantly...

While "top military brass" ALWAYS wants to keep a war going because, well, they're hawks and that is kind of their job, to wage war and use our massive military - the average military man and the average American are really, really tired of this war and I think that is one reason Obama was so popular.

He has to keep this campaign promise; to do otherwise would be unthinkable considering the other concessions he's made to the Right here.

That's my opinion.