emphasis mine

Actually I was surprised to learn the other day that Afghanistan is not only larger in area (251,772 sq. mi vs. 169,234 for Iraq) but also in population (31.9 million vs. 26.8 million), but I can understand the need for the extra manpower in Iraq, mainly because they were better equipped and trained than the Afghans.


For the record (not directed at Traveler specifically) I have read many times here that the Libs wanted troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan even before the resurgence of the Taliban. The reason was mainly to continue to go after OBL instead of letting him escape to carry out more terrorist acts, which I think was more what the American people wanted than to go into Iraq, and I would wager, a truer link to terrorism than Iraq was.

__________________
Two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the US

I've been around since "Buy American" meant "Made in the USA".

Didn't Reagan free the prisoners in Iran? Or was it Carter? If it was Reagan, I'm sure there were some negotiations at the time.

Also, did Russia just suddenly decide to lower the iron curtain? It seems that some of the biggest geopolitical changes (for the better) were done through negotiations and not force.

__________________
Two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the US

I've been around since "Buy American" meant "Made in the USA".

they will become those unfortunate martyrs who died for a greater collective good.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

Actually, there were negotiations led by Secretary of State Warren Christopher (under Carter Admin) which led to the Algerian Accord, which was the formal resolution to the Iranian hostage affair.

The Iranians released the hostages right around when Reagan was inaugurated. Reagan and/or his incoming Administration had nothing to actually do with it.

Yes, that is a particularly difficult political issue. However, no amount of military firepower can rationally resolve it.

Yes there was a viable approach on the table. That was NATO's invasion of Afghanistan.

The problem with that plan was the US invasion of Iraq. The number one problem in the Afghanistan campaign is the political problems caused by the US invasion of Iraq.

So long as the US has Iraq in turmoil, military missions in Afghanistan (let alone Pakistan) are mostly non-functional.

Without the complication of Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan was a problem that could be addressed with a military solution. With the Iraqi debacle, everything becomes that much more complex and unresolvable. Politically speaking, the Iraq problem has already spilled far beyond its borders.

The Iranians just wanted to embarass Carter. Reagan simply benefited.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

Only half correct. The Iranians wanted to embarrass the USA. The succeeded. Carter was not a specific enemy of Iranian revolution - he was just the US figurehead. Iranian hatred of the US has deep historical roots that go back a full generation before Carter became President.

Reagan simply benefited, that I agree.

The number one problem in Afghanistan is Pakistan.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Because they support the Taliban through their inability to control tribal affiliations on the Afghanistan/Pakistan Border? Or because they don't fully support the US by not allowing the US to wage war against the Taliban in Pakistan (not that the US has the resources to do so other than indiscriminate bombing)?

The problem in Pakistan is caused by (or exerbated by, or complicated by) the US invasion of Iraq.

If we didn't have the festering problem in Iraq, then Pakistan/Afghanistan could be addressed.

The Pakistani gov't doesn't have the willingness to stop the border transgressions that are allowing the Taliban resurgence; but then, it should also be noted that the US gov't doesn't have the willingness to force the issue, which makes me wonder what the US objective in Afghanistan really is these days.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

That is a big part of it.

That is also part of it.

And Musshariff is dependent upon US aid for his undemocratic regime. And that very US aid to Musshariff is what makes Musshariff almost impotent in Waziristan.

And Musshariff's 'treaty' with the Taliban that GW Bush gave tacit approval to limits Musshariff's ability to address the Taliban in Waziristan.

And yes, I'm aware that I'm probably spelling Musshariff's name wrong.

This was part of the treaty Pakistan signed with the Taliban in Waziristan a year ago - a treaty endorsed by G.W. Bush.

Where is the willingness on the part of Pakistan to pull the rug out from under the Taliban?

IMO, treaties are good for press coverage but damn little else.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Isn't the US running into yet another roadblock in it's assumed role of world policeman by refusing to recognize/accept tribal affiliations between two countries based on heritage and religious beliefs? That combination has proved impossible to defeat with conventional warfare.

Quote:
US ME 'allies' are all undemocratic, linked by tribal and religious bonds. The harder the US pushes its Shia puppet government in Iraq the more the predominantly Sunni ME resists doing US bidding.