Quote:
Originally Posted by cres
My point has always been, what have you done for me lately. And on that matter, that is what the occupied see, each and every day. Take the Ahfgans, their home has been occupied since the first Soviet tanks rolled in the 70's (not bothering to go further back). Then after they left, the Taliban structure took over, and now for the past 10 years, American GI's have been parading around.
Now imagine a German/French/Australian/whatever force cruising your neighbourhood, for as long as you can recall. Where they go is their business, and if you get in their way, you might get shot & killed. They never go anywhere without a full armed guard. Doesn't sound like much fun, a prisoner in your own community.
I agree its not something to be constantly debated and discussed, BUT, if the occupiers don't leave it's impossible to move on. Diplomats and technical people are who build a society, not armed soldiers. The bussword is security, but that's a canard. Its also not a sign of weakness to declare victory, and go home. Then it becomes a Churchill moment, not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.
I agree with this but we probably don't agree on the timing.
Let me be clear, I see Afghanistan and Iraq as seperate issues except with similar challenges when it comes to exit strategies and the threat of a hard line Islamic governments taking root, not by the will of the people but by the violent minority of extremist/fundamentalist who are backed by the theocracy of Iran. I think both countries are unable to currently avoid this with out heavy US/Western influence. This is the single biggest challenge for US interest in withdrawing from both countries.
While I do not doubt the negative impact our presence has but from personal experience, its not as significant issue as you seem to think it is. They do not like it, for sure, but they understand it.
The other side of the coin is, the people are going to be ultimately oppressed either by the US or fundamentalist influence...in the short-term......which do you think leads to better results for US/Western interest and likely the country in question?
Lastly, if we leave and the democratic government falls and a strict Islamic one takes it's place, specifically Iraq, we ultimately failed on the invasion then failed on our exit as well, making the situation much worse. While I'm sure many pundits would point to the invasion as the catalyst for the failure and rise of another hard-line Islamic government, the reality is one had very little to do with the other, other than the sequence of events in history. Sure the failure of leaving would of never occurred with out failures of the invasion and occupation, but as I've pointed out, that an irrelevant argument because the invasion did happen and their was no way to change that when the decision was made to leave.
I hope that made sense.