| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| What Are We Fighting For? ISAF Commander Re-Explains What 'Winning' Means in Afghanistan | |
| 2013-08-13 | |
| [CNSNews] Twelve years after the war began, General Joseph Dunford, the commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), says the American people "need to know exactly what we're trying to do" in Afghanistan. He indicated that winning the war is no longer about defeating al Qaeda. Although U.S.-led forces have "put extraordinary pressure on al-Qaeda and its associated networks in Afghanistan" and "disrupted al-Qaeda's ability to plan and conduct operations from within the country, Dunford said "al-Qaeda in the region remains resilient and determined to attack the West." Dunford indicated that winning the war involves nation-building. "I have a hard time standing in front of Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen that are in harm's way and talking about anything other than winning," Dunford said later in the speech. "And I want to make it clear that winning for us means setting the conditions for the Afghans to exploit the decade of opportunity that will come in 2015 and beyond." Dunford talked about developing the capabilities of Afghan forces so they can support "credible and transparent elections" in Afghanistan. He also spoke about Afghan forces being able to "harden" Afghanistan -- "so that it can facilitate, you know, economic development and political processes that, quite admittedly, will take many years after 2015."
| |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #13 That'd be the Rapid Umbrella Forward Force, otherwise known as the RUFF Riders. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-08-13 18:48 |
| #12 Ospreys this time baby, first class all the way. Assuming we can free up the air wing from its dog transport duties. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2013-08-13 18:35 |
| #11 Is that helicopter pad on top of the embassy ready yet? Ospreys this time baby, first class all the way. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-08-13 17:28 |
| #10 We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. " George W. Bush, September 11th 2001 Pakistan? |
| Posted by: Paul D 2013-08-13 12:42 |
| #9 message to future antagonist nation-states should be: "No more nation-building. Pull the same shit and we'll come in, kill you all and break things, then leave." |
| Posted by: Frank G on the road 2013-08-13 12:36 |
| #8 Is that helicopter pad on top of the embassy ready yet? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2013-08-13 12:07 |
| #7 Screw nation building. Like giving aid vs, teaching skills, nations must be built by their inhabitants. What we did in Germany and Japan was to change the direction of nations that were already fully grown. Rebuilding, if you will, rather than building. There was a time when I thought differently, but I was wrong. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2013-08-13 10:01 |
| #6 "It sounds dreadfully noble" I disagree. Giving aid to liberated Afghanistan is enabling an evil entity. Precisely my point, Elmerert Hupens2660. Sounding noble and being noble are very often not at all related. Although the problem is dumping money on the government of Afghanistan as it is presently constituted, I think. Supplying schools, digging wells, training the locals to build gobar gas facilities, solar water disinfectors, and build roads... and generally move from the eighth century to the twelfth or so, with a concomitant awareness of the world beyond the next village, these are not bad things that might survive our leaving. Not all of Afghanistan is like the Pashtun provinces, according to what I've read. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2013-08-13 09:56 |
| #5 However all other politically viable options are even worse. Screw nation building. The alternative would be to back a strong tribe. Should have trained them and equipped them to give hell to the tribe that is the relative main source of all the problems, to take the fight to their villages and headmen. To paraphrase - When they're up to their ass in Tajiks, its hard for the Pashtuns to remember to stick it to the Americans. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-08-13 08:51 |
| #4 Nation building you say? Sounds to me that Obastard could solve three problems at once here. 1. Draft all plumbers, electricians, carpenters etc. into the CBs and deploy them to A'stan. 2. Unemployment falls so the economy picks up. 3. Open up unlimited immigration (registering them as Demos at the border) to fill all the jobs in construction that lazy Americans won't/can't do. What more could he ask for? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2013-08-13 07:39 |
| #3 Dunford indicated that winning the war involves nation-building. Max Headroom could not have said it better. Thank you General Dunford. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-08-13 06:34 |
#2 "He indicated that winning the war is no longer about defeating al Qaeda.""These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." Looking at this development, why would a rational, hostile and immoral international actor come to the conclusion that a mass fatality attack on the continental US is not a winning move but a suicidal mistake? Precipitous withdrawal and an end to any aid to Afghanistan is a bad option which will have bad consequences. However all other politically viable options are even worse. "It sounds dreadfully noble" I disagree. Giving aid to liberated Afghanistan is enabling an evil entity. There might be an argument for this policy based on realpolitik but I haven't heard one yet that was convincing. The Afghans may be SOBs but they're definitely not our SOBs. </rant> |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2013-08-13 04:00 |
| #1 They will be doing good if it lasts 10 minutes. Talking in terms of ten years is pipe dreams. |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2013-08-13 02:42 |