Login/Sign Up




What would be the best strategy to end the war in a responsible way in Afganistan ?
Politics

writingcloud
Jun 01, 2009
4 votes
6 debaters


+ Add Argument

0
leave as soon as possible


lordhaines
Jun 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

One problem with the tanks and bombing.... Soviets did that and got slaughtered. it is not the best tactic. Manpower is needed to flush them out.

Why Pakistan and the UK/US don't all do a joint operation in north Afghanistan and north Pakistan to make one last push I do not know. It would make things a lot easier. Pakistan drive Taliban into arms of UK/US troops as they are driven back over the border into Afghanistan kind of thing.

Tanks are not easily moved around, and bombing achieves nothing because areas are so sparsely population. So you are essentially bombing sheep with multi million pound weapons. Waste of money.

 
thoughtprocess
Jun 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
This is just like Vietnam. You have the U.S.(as well as other nations) trying to turn water into wine. Afghanistan is full of fundamentalist Muslims that will never "appreciate" outside forces contributing heavily to Afghanistan being a perpetual war zone. These people have suffered like none of us could ever imagine under domestic and international terror. Whether it be the Taliban, the Soviet Union or the Coalition Forces.

We will never eradicate the likes of the Taliban or Al Qaeda with the kind of war we are fighting in Afghanistan. We will kill scores of civilians, few actual terrorists who posed a realistic threat to us and in the end will have achieved no greater security than when we started. This protracted war will actually garner widespread support for the very thing we wish to eliminate.

The course is set though. There would never be a pull out because of the fear of the "image" or "impression" that would leave of us. As if changing course and putting an end to an obviously failed tactic would leave a worse impression than the bombings of wedding parties.

The course that the Bush administration took and Obama is merrily continuing on with has made our enemies more insurmountable than ever. "Terrorism" will never stop. You can't win a war on it. You can only hope to contain it and do as much as possible to discourage support for it.

While I don't think there is really any course that could be taken NOW that would help to keep us safer, there must certainly be a better way of doing things. I would imagine covert or special forces operations with more precise targeting of actual terrorists. An international coalition would be more easily formed if there wasn't the added deterrent factor of sending thousands of their sons and daughters to die in the "Graveyard of Conquerors". Civilian support systems for the terrorist networks might be weakened if they didn't have U.S. bombs raining down on their heads and the heads of their children.

Why are we at war with countries when no one country is officially threatening any of us? We may as well be trying regime change and carpet bombings in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, The Sudan or any other countries that have a known terrorist presence. Changing our foreign policy, which is horrendous in the Muslim world, and nurturing the moderate or secular segments of these countries would also have an effect. There will never cease to be determined enemies as long as the U.S. gives Israel billions while they massacre and occupy the Palestinians. Or if we continue to have bases and start wars on their holy lands. Or while we support dictators that abuse and oppress millions of Muslims.

I am not an expert and I am in reality just giving an opinion, but it seems to me that these wars, ESPECIALLY THE WAR IN IRAQ, are only putting us in greater harm. There has to be a better way.

 
lordhaines
Jun 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lockepeter Show

Tanks and heavily armed gunships just get blown up by old soviet anti tank and anti helicopter weapons. It is stupidity.

Maybe if the British took over command then it will all end quicker. The US always think a mass of technology and equipment will win everything, hence why they seem to struggle when it doesn't work.

It is the Britain's view that in mountains where tanks can not even move then why use them? Or where helicopters are sitting targets in a sky above camouflaged caves and mountains, why use them?
Why not use troops to walk through the mountains and use their training to fight the Taliban and beat them.

The Afghans will love it is you poured loads of multi million dollar equipment into their back garden, they would just destroy it. This has already been shown in this war, and in the Soviet-Afghan war over 20 years ago, as well as Britains previous occupation of the country during the colonial years.

You go send your tanks and gun ships and get bogged down in mountains and get blown to bits by very effective non heat seeking missiles(so your gun ship has no defences against them) and anti tank rockets. And we will watch hundreds of US troops get slaughters.

We British prefer to do things AFTER thinking about them properly, learning from past experiences, and knowing exactly what you are up against. Which is why we lose less troops than the US does, because we don't make ourselves sitting ducks in huge machines.

 
ackery
Oct 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
four letters, N.U.K.E

 
+ Add Argument

4
stay and help the governement to settle down before leaving


lordhaines
Jun 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Now we are there, and the Taliban are still so strong we have no choice but to stay, or all our troops have died for nothing.

Well done to Pakistan for their military actions in north Pakistan too, it is helping drive the Taliban into oblivion.

 
thevenerablerob
Jun 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I agree with lordhaines. the Taliban is still tremendously strong - even possessing entire valleys. If the Taliban would just quick using civilians as a shield, it would be a whole lot easier - we could just roll some tanks in, bomb out the area and easily finish them off.



 
lockepeter
Jun 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

You have overlooked the fact that we are fighting an ill defined enemy, so attempting to push them into the arms of US forces would only give us hundreds of confused civilians and a few taliban members huddled together so you can't tell who's who, no, a show of force in the form of thanks and heavily armed gunships would easily be a step closer to winning with out ever having to fire a shot.

 
lockepeter
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

Yes, but if they have weapons systems that can destroy armored tanks and gunships, then don't you think that infantry would go down even faster? Also, we have been sending in infantry for years now and it hasn't worked. When you can show me no civilian deaths and a stable political situation under your plan, then we can talk.

Also, if American tanks and gunships were shot down, we could set our top analysts on the scene and determine the locations of these taliban and Al Qaeda bases, then bomb them back to the stone age with ground-based artillery. Also, with the deaths of hundreds of Americans maybe we could get the votes and support we need to get more resources over there.

(i do agree with the helicopter thing, however)

 
scifi
Jun 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

We trained the taliban to fight the soviets, we need to stop and realize that we need to stay the course and help them. I do agree that the bombing must stop.

 
lockepeter
Jun 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

Or is it because you don't deploy as many troops?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong