Why are we in Afghanistan?

[we vs us]

Gassy I think you skipped over the ramifications of all the warfighting we've done from WWII onwards.  We -- the American people -- have explicitly demanded that our wars be increasingly moral, not only in victory but in prosecution.  You can trace this from the creation of the UN and the Geneva Convention right after the Nazis gave up the ghost, on through Vietnam and now into the wikileaks era.  It's the confluence of industrial-scale atrocities, increasingly granular media exposure, war tech that allows a more and more scalpel-like approach to conflict, and the absence of actual "war," wherein we conquer and subjugate an enemy population.  We don't do that any more.  Part of that is preference on the part of the armed forces, part of that is just how our enemies choose to engage us -- which is to say, there's no one who can engage us mano-a-mano.  Hence we have to fight battles where winning diplomatically is of first order, and winning militarily is farther on down the list. 

What I'm saying is:  trends going back more than 50 years have culminated in the anti-insurgent techniques we're fighting today.  It's not wussification, it's actually great strides in morality, in technique and technology, that are keeping the body counts down. 

[Gaspar]

What I'm saying is:  trends going back more than 50 years have culminated in the anti-insurgent techniques we're fighting today.  It's not wussification, it's actually great strides in morality, in technique and technology, that are keeping the body counts down. 

There are no "great moral strides" in battle. 

If we are engaged in diplomacy than there is no need for soldiers.  If we are engaged in battle, there is no place for diplomats.  By blurring the two, we have made peace impossible, we simply prolong the conflicts until we get tired.  Then we leave, and the investment we made disappears or is funneled back into the hands of the enemy.  Through habituation, terrorist organizations have learned that all they have to do is wait us out. 

I hear what you are saying, but it does not produce results.

We run around the world flipping light swathes and swatting roaches.

[we vs us]

There are no "great moral strides" in battle. 

If we are engaged in diplomacy than there is no need for soldiers.  If we are engaged in battle, there is no place for diplomats.  By blurring the two, we have made peace impossible, we simply prolong the conflicts until we get tired.  Then we leave, and the investment we made disappears or is funneled back into the hands of the enemy.  Through habituation, terrorist organizations have learned that all they have to do is wait us out. 

I hear what you are saying, but it does not produce results.

We run around the world flipping light swathes and swatting roaches.

My point is that there ARE no major wars anymore.  All wars against the US from here on out will be variations on Afghanistan and Iraq, which is to say insurgent wars.  Why?  Because there's no one strong enough to take us head on.  This includes China, Russia, anyone else -- should they ever decide to try (which they won't).  The only way to win against the US is to roadside-bomb us into submission.  Which is what's been happening.  And the only way to fight an insurgent war is to win through PR.  And unfortunately we're losing Afghanistan through PR. 

Also:  war and diplomacy have always been intertwined.  As Clausewitz said:  war is a continuation of politics by other means, which implies simply that war and diplomacy are two tools in the same political toolbox.  I'd say the first American wars of the 21st century are ample proof of that, wouldn't you?   

[heironymouspasparagus]

Also:  war and diplomacy have always been intertwined.  As Clausewitz said:  war is a continuation of politics by other means, which implies simply that war and diplomacy are two tools in the same political toolbox.  I'd say the first American wars of the 21st century are ample proof of that, wouldn't you?   

The Philippine Insurrection and the Moro rebellion??  Not sure how the first two American wars of the 20th century relate necessarily.  There really wasn't that much political diplomacy to either of them.  We just went in and kicked a$$ until we won.  Sort of.

Or did you mean something a little later in the century, like the Mexican Revolution and the Haitian Campaign??

[heironymouspasparagus]

We -- the American people -- have explicitly demanded that our wars be increasingly moral, not only in victory but in prosecution.  You can trace this from the creation of the UN and the Geneva Convention right after the Nazis gave up the ghost, on through Vietnam and now into the wikileaks era.  It's the confluence of industrial-scale atrocities, increasingly granular media exposure, war tech that allows a more and more scalpel-like approach to conflict, and the absence of actual "war," wherein we conquer and subjugate an enemy population.  We don't do that any more.  Part of that is preference on the part of the armed forces, part of that is just how our enemies choose to engage us -- which is to say, there's no one who can engage us mano-a-mano.  Hence we have to fight battles where winning diplomatically is of first order, and winning militarily is farther on down the list.  

What I'm saying is:  trends going back more than 50 years have culminated in the anti-insurgent techniques we're fighting today.  It's not wussification, it's actually great strides in morality, in technique and technology, that are keeping the body counts down.  

I submit that while we perhaps "demand" a certain level of morality in our wars (I don't really believe that at all), we put up with a much lower level of morality in execution.  As a matter of fact, I can think of only one instance since WWII, with a "possible" second, where we HAVE been involved in an episode of imperialistic voyeurism that might actually have some moral justification.  All the others have been pretty much a direct result of, at the very least, our meddling.  At worst, totally immoral to the core adventurism playing fast and loose with any and all moral standards.  (Iraq, 2003.  Viet Nam.  Installation of Shah of Iran.  Installation of Manuel Noriega.  Just to mention a few.)

Actually, the first, attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, was not just morally justified, but morally imperative.  

The second was the invasion of Grenada - which was a country in it's own kind of turmoil, where we really may not have had any other interest than "freeing" American students.  Who actually weren't at all part of the issues in the country, despite what Clint's movie would have us believe.

It would be interesting to hear some of the moral justifications involved in all the other episodes we have indulged in.

[Gaspar]

Also:  war and diplomacy have always been intertwined.  As Clausewitz said:  war is a continuation of politics by other means, which implies simply that war and diplomacy are two tools in the same political toolbox.  I'd say the first American wars of the 21st century are ample proof of that, wouldn't you?   

That's how we sleep better. . .War by definition is the failure of diplomacy.  Diplomacy is negotiated agreement, the word literally means "official document or folded piece of paper."  

[Gaspar]

Here we go again!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-afghan-photos-20120418,0,5032601.story

[Townsend]

Here we go again!

"They".  Here they go again.

[patric]

Here we go again!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-afghan-photos-20120418,0,5032601.story

Anxious to get back to their old jobs as Los Zetas?