America's 7 mistakes in Afghanistan

[doublemaster]

I think these costs of war is exaggerated. keeping their army in US would be more costlier
Pizzas are more costlier than BBQs in Afgan.

 

[Kompromat]

So Pakistan is relying on "Allah" and "Time", and "hoping" USA is running out of money? Not very stable foundations for national policy, I would suggest.

I was trusting your enlightenment, by hoping that you won't take it literally.

And Pakistan still has much to save and protect it from total loss.

There is no total loss, we are not big enough to be a direct target. Its someone else, and they know it quite well.

The danger for Pakistan lies in the fallout from said civil war, were it to come to pass, but not to the same extent for USA.

USA has a history of creating , funding , fueling , benefiting from civil wars and then bailing out as they did in 1991. US this time has gotten its beard tied in the bushes of Afghanistan , its not easy for them to leave regardless of how much they talk and try to calm down their public so that they can keep paying their taxes.

 

[Esc8781]

The main mistake is electing Bush.

 

[Fanling Monk]

The main mistake is electing Bush.

Please don't open that old wound, I have a weak heart and can not bear to be reminded constantly.

BTW the Supreme Court took the presidency from Gore and awarded it to Bush. What a costly decision, 16 trillions dollars and counting.

 

[Kompromat]

I think these costs of war is exaggerated. keeping their army in US would be more costlier
Pizzas are more costlier than BBQs in Afgan.

Report: Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Cost US Nearly $4 Trillion

You need to do some serious reading.

 

[VCheng]

I was trusting your enlightenment, by hoping that you won't take it literally.

Nah, I am the dumb one here on DefPk, hoping to be enlightened by the deep thinking TTs and the brilliant hardworking Mods and Admins.

There is no total loss, we are not big enough to be a direct target. Its someone else, and they know it quite well.

Oh yeah, the old "Get China through Pakistan" canard, that sounds so attractive because it assumes Pakistan as a focal point in international geopolitics.

USA has a history of creating , funding , fueling , benefiting from civil wars and then bailing out as they did in 1991. US this time has gotten its beard tied in the bushes of Afghanistan , its not easy for them to leave regardless of how much they talk and try to calm down their public so that they can keep paying their taxes.

US policies work quite well in furthering its national interests, wouldn't you agree? The endgame in Afghanistan is still to be played, and the IRS continues to gets its tax returns quite nicely.

Report: Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Cost US Nearly $4 Trillion

You need to do some serious reading.

So it is $3.7 trillion (estimated by one source) including interest payments out to 2020. What is the big deal here?

 

[Kompromat]

Nah, I am the dumb one here on DefPk, hoping to be enlightened by the deep thinking TTs and the brilliant hardworking Mods and Admins.

Id rather not reply that.

Oh yeah, the old "Get China through Pakistan" canard, that sounds so attractive because it assumes Pakistan as a focal point in international geopolitics.

I won't argue with you, i said what i said and i said it because i have strong reasons to believe.

US policies work quite well in furthering its national interests, wouldn't you agree? The endgame in Afghanistan is still to be played, and the IRS continues to gets its tax returns quite nicely.

The goal in Afghanistan is more strategic than national, which is why US has got its beard tied up. Otherwise they would have left long time ago.

So it is $3.7 trillion (estimated by one source) including interest payments out to 2020. What is the big deal here?

Those are not real figures, US war is costing way too much in Afghanistan but its worth it for a bigger prize. Cost to benefit ratio is pretty high in this high stakes game.

US may not have cash to carry it too far now though: $120 trillion: The shocking true size of our nation's debt - NYPOST.com


Food for thought:

Why China's Economy Will Grow to $123 Trillion by 2040 - By Robert Fogel | Foreign Policy

 

[VCheng]

I won't argue with you, i said what i said and i said it because i have strong reasons to believe.

I am not asking for an argument, just an intelligent discussion. If everyone here also says what you have said, then we might as well close down the forum.

The goal in Afghanistan is more strategic than national, which is why US has got its beard tied up. Otherwise they would have left long time ago.

US national interests have global strategic reach by very definition of a superpower.

Those are not real figures, US war is costing way too much in Afghanistan but its worth it for a bigger prize. Cost to benefit ratio is pretty high in this high stakes game.

US may not have cash to carry it too far now though: $120 trillion: The shocking true size of our nation's debt - NYPOST.com

Food for thought:

Why China's Economy Will Grow to $123 Trillion by 2040 - By Robert Fogel | Foreign Policy

Most of US debt is owned by US entities (China has only 9%), and the costs of the wars are less as a percentage of GDP than many wars in the past.

China has a serious demographic time bomb ticking: please look up its peak of working age population and how it has a serious risk of ageing out before it grows rich.

 

[ajtr]

Adoption of Indian policy and synchronized vision was the biggest blunder US has made so far in Afghanistan. You can't afford to have India in Afghanistan while you want Pakistan to be on your side.

Instead i would say Indians provided the rope of indian bogey to be used freely by usa and pakistan long enough to hang themselves in Afghanistan with same rope by its different ends....

I must say indian truly took leaf out of chanakya's arthshatra here..........

 

[Xeric]

That's true.

Unfortunately Pakistan does not follow the Kutaliyian saying; 'Your neighbor is your natural enemy'.

In today's world where the possibility of conventional warfare and thus the likelihood of an open conflict with between two easily distinguishable adversaries has diminished, only a dumbass country is going to follow the above mentioned course of foreign relations.

Seriously because with the advent of asymmetric warfare, the ever evolving nature of LIC and the rat tag militia mastering the art of sub-conventional warfare, no country in its right mind would like to have an unstable state as its neighbor, especially if the residents of such a state are 'experts' in the art of non-linear warfe, and as such the author's assertion that a stable Afg would be an anathema to Pakistan is down right nasty , illfounded and full of mischief.

i mean, who the heck wants talibunnies to run amok in their neighbors especially when they can move across a porous border to do their deeds in your country freely? i dont know, may be if india is so fond of following Kutalia's teachings, why does it 'worries' about Pakistan going unstable (re-Pak nuclear weapons in wrong hands BS etc)?

So fuego sire, why dont you give me one guud reason so as to why would Pakistan consider an unstable Afg in its benefit? But please spare me the usual indian rehtorics of Pakistan using their 'Pathan/Afghan Strategic Assets's against india/kashmir in any future conflicts?


P.S. Excuse my spells and formatting, getting too old for mobile browsing.

 

[Hyperion]

The biggest mistake was the day Bush Jr, was hatched in Texas

'Ya'll, we're gonna get the bad guys, and teach them a lesson'

 

[Paan Singh]

Unfortynately Pakistan does not follow the Kutaliyian saying; 'Your neighbor is your natural enemy'.

In today's world where the possibility of conventional warfare and thus the likelyhood of an open conflict with between two easily distinguishable adversaries has diminished, only a dumbass country is going to follow the above mentioned course of forgein relations.

Seriously because with the advent of asymetric warfare, the ever evolving nature of LIC and the rat tag militia mastering the art of sub-conventional warfare, no country in its right mind would like to have an unstable state as its neighbor espacially if the residents of such a state are 'experts' in the art of asymetric/sub-conventional warfe, and thus the author's assertion that a stable Afg is an anathema to Pakistan is down right nasty , illfounded and full or mischief.

i mean, who the heck wants talibunnies to run amock in their neighbors espacially when they can move across a porous border to do thier deeds in your freely? i dont know, may be india is so fond of following Kutalia's teachings, why does it 'worries' about Pakistan going unstable (re-Pak nuclear weapons in wrong hands BS etc)?

So fuego sire, why dont you give one guud reason so as to why would Pakistan consider an unstable Afg in its benefit? But please spare me the usual indian rehtorics of Pakistan using their 'Pathan/Afghan Strategic Assets's against india/kashmir in any future conflicts?


P.S. Excuse my spells and formating, getting too old for mobile browsing.

Not unstable A-stan but planting a proxy govt in A-stan...

You people are deluded with strategic depth in A-stan..

General Kayani once told a gathering of editors that he was wedded to the doctrine of strategic depth in Afghanistan to better confront India in case of conflict.

General Kayani

India wants to exploit A-stan so that pakistan remain away from kashmir and fights on other front.Otherwise why you wont train militants there and send them to india?This have been accepted by hamid gul to musharaf that pakistan used A-stan for training the millitants and for further attacks in india but due to U.S presence and its priority to india,it backfired ..

 

[Ticker]

Not unstable A-stan but planting a proxy govt in A-stan...

You people are deluded with strategic depth in A-stan..


General Kayani

India wants to exploit A-stan so that pakistan remain away from kashmir and fights on other front.Otherwise why you wont train militants there and send them to india?This have been accepted by hamid gul to musharaf that pakistan used A-stan for training the millitants and for further attacks in india but due to U.S presence and its priority to india,it backfired ..

A nuclear power doesn't need any strategic depth. The delusion is on your side.

 

[Paan Singh]

A nuclear power doesn't need any strategic depth. The delusion is on your side.

hahhaaa.....

Ask Mr kayani

you seem to be another version of rafi

 

[Ticker]

hahhaaa.....

Ask Mr kayani

you seem to be another version of rafi

I have never heard Mr kayani talk about any strategic depth.

What the heck are you talking about.

Do you even know what is a strategic depth.