$(document).ready( function () { talk_rendercallback({"enabled":"0","islive":"0","eid":6238,"total":"9","discussion":[{"nm":"J.V.Hodgson","rs":"0","ms":"Comparing Vietnam with Afghanistan is nonsense, there is no real comparison. Vietnam was a political system Communism vs democracy war. Afghanistan is Religiously driven and a cultural divide. And yes the similarity Vietnam and Afghanistan politically is Theocracy versus Democracy, but still different.\nThe US argument in both cases has been National Security of the US.\nThe bottom line will be Vietnam did become a communist state anyway and In essesnce Afghanistan (you can include Iraq) will both become Theocracies defined by sharia law.\nIf America is looking to define a war win in Afghanistan as destroying tribal influence, ousting theocracy,and imposing western style law, then it\'s unwinnable.\nThe best time Afghans remember is when they had the weak Central government and tribally regulated areas and the local Imam dispensed quick law and justice sharia law style to any dispute, along with the local warlord.\nSo the current strategy of controlling key population areas and protecting same until Afghan military forces/police can replace ISAF or US forces is good.Then those forces go in smaller operational units to the various tribal areas. Work with the local warlord and councils or Jirgas, and even train the local warlord Militias and police. (actually they do not need it, they can as they have demonstrated many times do it quite well thank you!!) Attacking the elements of the Taliban in Helmand, Marjah, and Kandahar is a weakening of Taliban influence. Then moving out to population centres controlled by Tribal leaders and repeating the process weakens the Taliban further. \nThe point is you can only weaken Taliban influence as there will always be In Afghanistan and Pakistan a part of Islamic religious followers who support thier religious views and culture of little education for women the Burkha and multi wives for men. They (the Taliban) are not in my humble opinion a threat to US national Security.\nSo support the weak cental government, reinforcing the tribal leaders/Imam across Afghanistan, pull out the troops and let the NGO\'S and contractors work piecemeal with individual warlords on Agrarian reform, school building and road building or dam building and central government to get the funds to train teachers and finance school building with aid from US and Europe. Add to that building thru the UN a national law structure and courts with training for the local Imam and others involved in dispensing the law. Initially it will be a patchwork but over 30/40 years Afghans will develop a national code acceptable to the various ethnic groups of which the Pashtuns are the largest, but many others as we know.\nIn most cases I do not see the Taliban as directly linked to or supporting Al Qaeda. Some yes.\nMy final point is withdrawing troops quickly after weaking the Taliban via local security and economic and relatively minor central government support measures, is the quickest and most cost effective way to normalising Afghanistan.\nSame applies to Iraq whatever happens in this latest election, pull all troops out sooner rather than later and let the UN give support if Iraq asks for it on whatever. It will be Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish mish mash which they can manage far better on thier own without outside help, especially military of any kind, unless they ask!!\nRegards,\nHodgson.   ","pt":"Mar 29, 2010 02:53"},{"nm":"Mohammad N Asif","rs":"0","ms":"I would like to refer to the guy (Paul) who had three tour of Afghanistan and would to comment on his coment. I believe America and its Allies are using every tools available to them against their enemy. They are not playing nice and they are not the nice guys but it is just the American people who understand that this war is not the right war and it is not winnable that is why you do not get the support of your own people and your own media. You have used every kind of weapons except nuclear against your enemy but have failed. The reason is simple Afghans are sturbon people and they do not want to be ruled by foreigners. I also want to remind you that America have killed many innocent Afghans for the past 9 years and have sisded with a currupt regime from top to bottom. Taliban are brutal people no doubt about them but the people who are in power are worse than them when it comes to brutality, warlordism etc but at the end of the day it all depend whose side are you on. I hope you will realise that the innocent Afghan people are tired of fighting but they are not tired of resisting when it comes to brutality and illigal occupation. If the Afghans are delivered justice the Taliban will disappear, but think deep in your heart what justice the US and its allies have provided so far, except killing innocent citizens and their children and familes rather than protecting them.\n\nRegards ","pt":"Mar 27, 2010 20:10"},{"nm":"Kevin M. Perrier","rs":"0","ms":"Serges\' comment of Feb 24 fails to reconize how we were already engaged in Afganistan before 9/11.  It is due to the previous engagement that we were able to get such quick results.  It is due to the previous engagement that the Taliban responded the way they did.  This does not mean that the Taliban are good people, but that they had no choice.  9/11 is our excuse, not the Talibans\'.  9/11 does not explain poverty and the struggles of third world countries.","pt":"Mar 27, 2010 12:43"},{"nm":"Kevin M. Perrier","rs":"0","ms":"Pauls\' comment of Mar. 14 is with merit, as North Vietnam proved in its\' civil war ( also the American civil war).  War is a collection of atrocities committed by all sides of the war.  Anyone who does not understand this is nieve.  If Paul believes our country is holding back on atrocities, then he should re-evaluate the perception that we are at war.  If Paul failed to commit his share of atrocities when on combat tour, then he did not recognize he was in a war and is just as quilty as the American public.  If Paul did commit his share of atricities, then how does Paul justify that he wasted our " money, lives, and time".  There are people who refuse to go to war because they do not want to waste "money, lives, and time".  In other words, who is Paul trying to convince, himself or the public?  Would Paul do a fourth combat tour knowing he is wasting "money, lives, and time"?  \n\n\n\n\n","pt":"Mar 27, 2010 12:12"},{"nm":"sal depasquale","rs":"0","ms":"First rule of warfare: Know your enemy better than you know yourself and better than the enemy knows him or herself. In retrospect America was utterly ignorant about the Vietnamese. It wasn\'t until 1995 that Robert McNamara took a glance at the world through Vietnamese eyes. It really seems that America cannot deal with a problem that requires more that 30 seconds of thought. From all the pain of learning basic mathematics, I did learn that you cannot arrive at the correct answer, if you do not understand the problem to be solved.","pt":"Mar 26, 2010 05:55"},{"nm":"Paul","rs":"0","ms":"This is coming from someone who has 3 recent combat tours. The war is not winnable by the current doctrine of playing nice with the enemy. Until the American people feel a real danger and allow the U.S. Military to fight all out no rules to win we are wasting our time. If the people are unwilling to let us fight to win then let\'s go home and stop wasting money, lives, and time. These cells are easy to destroy they simply require small group tactics, capturing, and torturing the enemy until they give up intel. You have to go after their family, money, and spirit.  Anything less is not playing to win.","pt":"Mar 14, 2010 09:50"},{"nm":"serge","rs":"0","ms":"Unfortunately, unlike Vietnam, a strike against the US was carried out from Afghanistan. This forces us to engage, in some way, with the elements in this country, foreign and domestic, that were are party to that act and might be again if left undisturbed. Now exactly the nature of that engagement is very debatable. You certainly can\'t waltz in there, in the long run, with an army designed to take on the Warsaw Pact. But you do have to do something. Unlike Vietnam which became something moderately successful when we left it alone, I\'m afraid Afghanistan, the other Stans, and the horn of Africa will go very much the other way and become the pawns of Al Qaeda. Festering basket cases of poverty and Medieval thinking that will be a threat to the western world for the next century.","pt":"Feb 24, 2010 11:26"},{"nm":"hampster","rs":"0","ms":"America is again engaged in a non winable war. America just sent more troops into Afghanistan. It is so reminiscent of Viet Nam. Already 1000 Americans have lost their lives, the Afghanistan governmet is corrupt, the enemy is non distinguisable from the civilian population. A 12 year old lad or a 70 year old man may be the enemy. Russia failed with a 100,000 troops. America failed in Viet Nam with 180,000 troops. When will America realize the futility of these so-called limited wars like Viet Nam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. At least America could recognize the enemy in Korea.","pt":"Feb 24, 2010 10:42"},{"nm":"curtis ford","rs":"0","ms":"There is no evidense in this presentation that there are any obsticles to the taliban\'s disruptive behavior.  Also though I think represion is a negative for anyone\'s character development.  When it comes in the form of the religion in which you believe like islam or free market economics or comunism the believer is constrained to see accepting it as his duty to be upheld with pride.","pt":"Feb 24, 2010 06:59"}]}); });