Ron Paul: We’re Losing Afghanistan. Can We Win?

President Trump summoned his generals and experts to the “situation room” at the White House late last month. He was furious that there was no plan to win Afghanistan and that after 16 years we were, in his words, “losing” in Afghanistan. What can be done? Some told him to send in many more troops. Others told him to pull out troops. The big mercenary companies want the war privatized to them. Perhaps the real problem is that no one knows what “winning” the war could possibly look like. No one in Washington has a clue.

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

  • Pingback: Ron Paul: We’re Losing Afghanistan. Can We Win? – Antiwar.com (blog) | Prometheism.net()

  • Charles Aulds

    I believe it was Osama bin Laden’s plan to lure the US into a war on his turf and his terms, that he could very well win (in exactly the same way he defeated the Russian military, and his mujahideen handed them their asses), rather than trying to fight the US on its own turf and terms (a war that he was certain to lose).

    I believe a trap was laid, and our leaders ran right into it. Osama bin Laden studied the victory of the Viet Mihn over the French and later, the Viet Cong over the Americans in Indochina, and he knew full well that patience, persistence, and guerrilla tactics can nullify the might of the worlds’ most powerful armies.

    Time is America’s enemy. 16 years of war is TOO long. It’s over. And the Taliban won.

    • tiger

      The home team always wins, eventually. As HCM said, “We have nowhere else to go but the Americans can always go home.” And they did, minus 56,000 of them.

    • tom

      Bin Laden’s plan? So does this mean you believe the OBVIOUS lie that Bin Laden was the orchestrator of 911? You ALWAYS lose wars when you base them on PROVEN LIES! The USA lost this “war”(I call it a rape) when the first bullets and bombs flew! If and when Americans realize that “wars” are the ends and not the means, then maybe we can attempt to put the brakes on the rampant militarism that is consuming the common sense of the USA!

  • tiger

    Who’s “losing” Afghanistan? It was never yours to lose, you imperialist pig. Get out, leave them alone & maybe it’ll work out. Try fixing the US. That’s a tougher job but it’s where you live.

    • tom

      The USA is spreading its disjointed and fractured house all over the globe. Take care of your own house before you go around trying to tell others how they should run theirs!

  • YOTHI_TARZAN

    There is no intention from the govermet to win wars – it is all about selling guns!

  • nineteen50

    What do we win?

    • Luchorpan

      Afghans convert to the secular religion of liberal democratic capitalism, embrace open borders, free trade, low taxes, porn, women’s rights, and most importantly: multiple, large US military bases which might intervene if Afghans vote incorrectly.

      Plus CIA to support the correct candidates in elections.

      Those who oppose globalism get Orwell’s boot stomping on their face. That seems to be how “victory” is defined.

      • nineteen50

        At what cost?

        • Luchorpan

          Immense cost. I’m not saying I want such a thing. I’m just saying that seems to be the plan.

          Bush and crew seemed to believe Iraq/Afgahnistan would just convert to the superior “American” ideas.

          I’m not claiming I want such a thing or believe it will be successful. It’s rather painful to me to see ancient peoples and traditions destroyed in these wars. I want to preserve things, so I have a very different view.

        • Luchorpan

          Since globalism most wants the destruction of the barriers to globalism, the warring doesn’t have to be successful. It only has to destroy the culture and traditions of its victims.

          It’s much easier to destroy something than to preserve it. The globalists want everything destroyed, to give way to some age of “Reason”. Or maybe they just want profit and power for the now, with little regard for the future.

          • “Globalist” seems to be Luchorpanese for “a notional bunch of people who want, at this particular moment, whatever I don’t want at this particular moment.”

          • Luchorpan

            Not at all. If you want a secular world that has absolute no values, only “reason”, then you go about destroying all traditions, history, culture, nations: Any sort of group tie or source of meaning, all must be eradicated. And as new ones spring up, they must be crushed.

            And then the ideal secular globalist world comes about, with man finally able to act upon his supposedly good nature, without being pulled down by distractions.

            That’s pretty much how left-libertarians, Marxists, most everyone on the Left thinks. Utopia arises once those dastardly religious and nationalist folks are no more.

          • Well, I’m a left-libertarian (which is just a long way of saying “libertarian”) and no, I don’t think that way.

  • They can’t build their pipeline, they cant extract the resources from the ground, so they harvest some poppies and sell decades more war for profit. It’s just a scam. The negotiations with the Taliban broke down over the pipeline and then 9/11 happened and we invaded. They thought that by now they’d have infrastructure, security, and a pliant puppet regime to facilitate sucking the country dry.

    • Luchorpan

      Afghanistan’s also important for squeezing Iran, Russia, and potentially Pakistan. Globalism marches on. Resistance is futile.

      • Mikronos

        Squeezing has never been good for business. Even when you do have then by the bag at some point you have to let go and trust they’ve learned the lesson.
        Most good business is mutually beneficial ‘sucking’ and ‘dry’ is a prostitutional transaction.

        • Luchorpan

          Iran’s no threat to me :)

  • Mikronos

    What does winning look like? Epcot? A Nat Geo ideologue? Something like South Korea or a Honduras? Colombia?
    Afghanistan sure as hell will never look like Main Street USA and, given the neighborhood, it will never lack ‘alien outside influences’ – or at least the kind of influences America doesn’t like.
    Things could potentially get far more civilized at Bagram or Kandahar. There might even be more scheduled flights and ring road traffic supplying the markets around the periphery, but even with the cavalry patrolling the routes, some kind of security – and emergency response, will still be needed when everybody is wearing levis and dockers. The question is how willing American tax payers are going to be about flying everything in? For when that stops, the ‘losing’ starts again.
    And that’s, still, the ‘good day’ scenario.