Is the War in Afghanistan Winnable?

 "The war began in response to the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, and nine years later, is now America's longest war"

Though the origins of the war involve the ongoing Afghan Civil War and the Soviet Invasion and Occupation of the 1970s and 1980s, the current war began in October, 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Here is some past history about Afghanistan and the fighting within the country.

Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the fall of the Afghan Communist government in 1992, a protracted civil war raged on between the various factions of anti-Communist Afghan fighters, who called themselves the Mujahadeen (people doing jihad). In this realm of chaos, some former Mujahadeen found a leader in Mullah Mohammed Omar. A Mullah is an Islamic religious leader. A former Mujahadeen fighter who returned to his home after fall of the Communist regime, this member of the Pashtun ethnic group led a new armed group called the Taliban (student), and many of the original recruits to Omar's movement were Islamic religious students. Other former Mujahadeen leaders of Pashtun background joined with the Taliban as this new group sought to impose law and order on the country. The particular law they sought to impose was an extreme version of Islamic law.  Under Taliban-imposed law, women are not allowed to work outside the home or attend school. Men are expected to grow beards and attend religious services regularly. Also, in 2001, the Taliban ordered the destruction of all non-Islamic idols and statues in areas under their control. They also attracted the support of Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization.

In 1994, the Taliban attacked and defeated local warlords and began to gather a reputation for order and military success. Pakistan soon began supporting them, partially as a means of establishing a stable, friendly government in Kabul. The continual fighting between the former Mujahadeen armies caused waves of refugees to flood Pakistan's border regions and interfered with Pakistani trade in the region. The Taliban took control of Kandahar, acquiring a large supply of modern weapons, including fighter aircraft, tanks and helicopters. In January of 1995, the Taliban approached Kabul and was seized in September of 1996.

 Taliban fought against several militias and warlords, eventually defeating them all. Several anti-Taliban leaders and their forces fled to the northern part of the country to continue fighting against the Taliban. One of these leaders, or warlords, was Ahmed Shah Massoud. By 1997, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. 

 In 1998, following the terrorist bombings of American embassies in Africa, the United States launched a cruise missile attack on training camps belonging to bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization in Afghanistan. Autumn of 2001, the Taliban continued to pressure the Northern Alliance, often with the aid of Osama bin Laden and his Arab forces. On September 9, 2001, the Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was mortally wounded in an assassination attempt carried out by two Arab men posing as journalists. This attack was the work of bin Laden's organization as a possible prelude to the airline hijackings and terrorism in the United States on September 11. The Northern Alliance responded to Massoud's killing with an aerial attack on Kabul the night of September 11. The killing of Massoud was coordinated with the terror attacks on the United States which took place on September 11. As the United States assigned blame for the attacks on bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, plans began to take the fight to Al-Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors as the first phase of what became known as the Global War on Terror.

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, armed forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Afghan United Front launched Operation Enduring Freedom.  The primary driver of the invasion was the September 11 attacks on the United States. Main goal was to dismantle the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization and ending its use of Afghanistan as a base. The aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime.

As more Allied troops entered the war and the Northern Alliance forces fought their way southwards, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda retreated toward the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. From 2002 onward, the Taliban focused on survival and on rebuilding its forces. From 2005 to the present, the Taliban has increased its attacks and is using suicide bombers and other tactics from Iraq War.

  

2007, while on a diplomatic trip to Afghanistan, an apparent assassination attempt was made by Taliban insurgents, who claimed that Cheney was a target in the attack. A suicide bomber blew up a checkpoint at Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul, killing 20, including an American soldier.

 The Afghan nation was able to build democratic structures and to create some progress in key areas such as health, economy, education, transport, agriculture and construction. NATO is rebuilding and training the military and police force.

 Unfortunately, in the years that followed, the U.S. did not devote enough resources to the war in Afghanistan, and the Taliban were able to regain strength. It is only now, with President Obama's decision last year to send 30,000 additional troops, that we have enough soldiers in place to implement an effective counterinsurgency strategy. To succeed in Afghanistan, we must convince the Afghan population that we, not the Taliban, are their best hope for the future. And we need to make them feel secure enough that they'll cooperate with us to defeat the insurgents. 

 Despite the recent increase in U.S. casualties as our forces have pushed into areas previously ceded to the Taliban, there are early signs of success: For example, after stepped-up training, recent reports indicate that the Afghan National Army may be now ready to take over security.  But counterinsurgency takes time to succeed. Consider the example of Iraq: Just a few years ago, the situation there looked miserable. Then a troop surge and a shift in strategy began to turn things around, and now violence in Iraq has substantially subsided and the U.S. has withdrawn its combat forces. Terrorists across the border in Pakistan continue to plot attacks. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan is essential to ensuring that these terrorists cannot again use it as a safe haven from which to attack us, as they did during the 1990s and on 9/11. 

"Less than 50% of U.S. troops believe Afghanistan War is winnable".

There are two principal reasons the war in Afghanistan cannot be won with the level of resources that the American people are willing to devote to it. 

First, the Afghan government is barely functioning in many places and is highly corrupt despite more than eight years of aid from the United States and the international community. Winning the war in Afghanistan is impossible as long as the government is corrupt and ineffective. Poor leadership creates opportunities for Taliban militants, enabling them to recruit soldiers and get help from Afghans who are angry with the government. Yet the government shows no sign of becoming any more effective or less corrupt. 

U.S. troops are losing confidence in the military's long-term chances of success in Afghanistan, a new poll has revealed.
The Military Times survey found less than half of serving soldiers believe the U.S. is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed in Afghanistan.
The number is down from 2007, when more than 75 percent of those polled said the U.S. was 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed.

 The second reason is that Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan continues to support the Taliban. Pakistan helped create the Taliban in the early 1990s as a way to gain influence inside Afghanistan. Despite promises to the U.S. to help fight the insurgents, it has continued to provide aid to the Taliban since the war began in 2001. Pakistan's border with Afghanistan is a reserve for the Taliban, as are certain cities inside Pakistan. Despite Pakistan's domestic problems with its own militants, it shows no sign of cutting off support to the Taliban. These safe havens and government support make it all but impossible to completely destroy the Taliban as an organization. 

 If the U.S. were willing to commit hundreds of thousands of troops for another decade or more, it might succeed in defeating the Taliban and building a stable Afghanistan. But the American people—and the politicians they elect—will not support a commitment on this scale. And that makes victory in Afghanistan virtually impossible.

U.S. troops are losing confidence in the military's long-term chances of success in Afghanistan, a new poll has revealed.
The Military Times survey found less than half of serving soldiers believe the U.S. is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed in Afghanistan.
The number is down from 2007, when more than 75 percent of those polled said the U.S. was 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Link to 

Defense Sec. Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus on the 10-year-long war.

http://abcn.ws/iywJPG

Facts 

"Less than 50% of U.S. troops believe Afghanistan War is winnable"

U.S. troops are losing confidence in the military's long-term chances of success in Afghanistan, a new poll has revealed.

The Military Times survey found less than half of serving soldiers believe the U.S. is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed in Afghanistan.

The number is down from 2007, when more than 75 percent of those polled said the U.S. was 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed.

http://lpmndc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=231%3Aless-than-50-of-us-troops-believe-afghanistan-war-is-winnable&catid=40%3Awar&Itemid=1

2007, while on a diplomatic trip to Afghanistan, an apparent assassination attempt was made by Taliban insurgents, who claimed that Cheney was a target in the attack. A suicide bomber blew up a checkpoint at Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul, killing 20, including an American soldier.
http://www.historyguy.com/war_in_afghanistan.html

The Other Wes Moore.........One Name, Two Fates

1. The Wes Moore's were a like because they were born blocks apart from each other in similar Baltimore neighborhoods. They grew up fatherless, hung out on street corners with bad groups of kids and ran into trouble with the police at an early age. They also bad grades and struggled with school.

2. A turning point in Wes 1 was his mother shipping him off to military school. She had told him that if he didn't do well in school and stay out of trouble that's where he would be going. He called her bluff and continued to slack off and then he found himself at Valley Forge military school. At first he didn't take it seriously and slacked off there. His fellow troops didn't want him there either because of the distraction he was causing. He realized that his mother had put a lot of money and sacrifice for him to go there. He also realized that going to that school will help him with discipline and take some responsibility for his actions and being treated differently then back on the street corner in the old neighborhood. After awhile he improved dramatically and was enjoying the school very much. 

Wes 2  didn't get a break until later in life where he needed to find a job to raise his kid and take care of his family. He was able to get a job at jobs corps doing carpentry and acquired skills so he could get a decent job when he was done.  After finishing the corps he had crap jobs and couldn't find a job to provide for his family. So he went into drug business because he knew he needed money fast and he knew they would be the only way his family would survive. He was weak to give in so easy and to take the low road. By him going back to "thug-life" he didn't learn anything.    

3. The boys parents had a big affect on their personal development. Wes 1 father died when he was three and he didn't understand really what was going on at the time. He was a good father and husband. The  mother, after her husband had died, struggled with with his death and raising Wes and the other children. She realized she needed to find help and went and took the family to live their grandparents. She also wanted the best for her children. The neighborhood was falling apart and becoming dangerous, so the change was good. Wes's mom did her best to keep her son out trouble and to do well in school.

Wes 2 had a different life. His father was ghost from when he was born. He met his father later at his grandmothers and he was a creepy drunk. The mother struggled to raise her kids as best as she could. Wes 2 did have a father figure around and the closest thing to one was his older half brother Tony who was a drug dealer from the age of ten. So Wes already in the bad surroundings at an early age and seeing the way his brother dressed and acted, to Wes, Tony was a "gangsta". Tony did try and tell him to stay in school and that he wishes he could have a due-over. Because the life he lives is terrible and dangerous. 

4. The book showed two different types of human behavior. Wes 1 started off on the right track and then introduced to street life and getting into trouble. He slacked off in school and had a run in with the police. His mother always being on his case and doing all she could to keep an eye on her son is what kept him from going down the toilet. The military school was a big help in his self help becoming a man. 

Wes 2 from the start of the book was in bad surroundings had no one really that looked out for him. He had a older half brother that was a drug dealer that was the closes thing he had to a father/ role model. He was taught by his brother not to take peoples crap and to leave a impression that they won't ever bother you again. He took that to heart and he listened to him. He was in and out of trouble with the police from when he was young and now a convicted murdered. I feel that if he had some guidance other than his druggie brother he might have had a chance.

5. I like the booked very much. It reminded me of when I was a kid and the people I hung out with and how I had some in common with the Wes boys. I wasn't big with school and I am still not. No clue of what I wanted after high school. My dad did the best he could to raise my sister and I. Keeping a good eye on us to make sure  we weren't doing the wrong thing. Staying involved in our lives was probably the best thing he could have done. Now a days kids parents drop them off at the day care or are always away so they have to be watched by a sitter or nanny. Spending time with your kids will definitely change who they are when they are older. Having guidance in their lives is important. Going into the military made me mature a lot faster than my friends because of the discipline and strict rules and attention to detail. 

I know I'm blabbing along here but book shows how different you life could be with the decisions you make throughout the course of your life. The choices Wes 1 makes are great and the choices Wes 2 makes you shake your head especially when for a small chance you think he may have found a way out of the awful life he was leading. But he gets pulled back in.

Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism

1st Amendment (right to free speech) be granted to "terrorists"?

Anti-terrorism laws are constitutional even when they have an adverse impact on free speech, which makes it a federal crime to knowingly provide material support or resources to a terrorist organization. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under the grounds of necessity.
The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11 led to many casualties, including thousands at the World Trade Center in New York City. Those concerned with civil liberties worry that constitutional freedoms may be the latest victim of the attacks and the resulting war on terrorism. Perhaps the most obvious threat to civil liberties in the wake of Sept. 11 was Congress' quick passage of the so-called USA Patriot Act a law that provides great powers to law enforcement officials.To some, this new law epitomizes the assault on our nation's civil liberties. The law allows the government to search a person's home without immediately listing the object of the search. The law also allows the attorney general to deport individuals who engage in any nonviolent activity on behalf of any group deemed a terrorist organization. Other provisions expand wiretapping capabilities for federal law enforcement officials. Still other parts of the law allow the police to obtain information about private Internet communications under a relaxed standard of review.

There needs to be strong protection for a core area of protected speech and advocacy. Americans should be able to make arguments to a court on the behalf of terrorist groups. That is crucial for the legal system to work and for the constitutionality of laws of this kind to be tested. They should be able to print the views of these groups for journalistic purposes, either to report the news or to convey a range of opinions. People also need to be free to speak independently about these groups. These rights need to be made clear in advance. It is not enough for the government simply to say it will not prosecute in these cases. As long as people fear being sentenced to 15 years in prison, they are likely to avoid engaging even in protected speech. Many crimes from blackmail to leaking insider stock information — are committed through words. There is no right to act as a spokesman for a terrorist group or serve as its adviser. Giving advice to a terrorist group, even if it is not about violent activities, is not the same as getting on a soapbox and speaking about politics. It is not necessarily innocent.

 Former House speaker, Newt Gingrich said that by proposing that free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. "This is a serious, long-term war, either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people." He also said, "we should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous."

I feel that terrorism is a serious issue in the United States. With all the laws and acts being put into place, are civil liberties are at threat. I rather have federal organizations and special departments keeping a close eye on people and keeping the Unites States safe even if that threatens my civil liberties. The case of that Sudbury man, Mehanna being arrested was good in a way because he was spreading propaganda for Al-Qaeda and promoting violent jihad. Luckily this was all that Mehanna had done that we have been told and has been proven. Hopefully bringing him in stopped another act of terrorism. I rather the FBI act before hand rather than a possibility of people getting hurt.


Facts

1."This is a serious, long-term war, either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people."

2. Many crimes from blackmail to leaking insider stock information — are committed through words. There is no right to act as a spokesman for a terrorist group or serve as its adviser. Giving advice to a terrorist group, even if it is not about violent activities, is not the same as getting on a soapbox and speaking about politics. It is not necessarily innocent.

3. Al Qaeda by translating such materials and distributing them on the Internet, allegedly in support of Al Qaeda’s propaganda