http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/09/excia-official-challenges-logi.html#more

headline:

Ex-CIA Official Challenges Logic of U.S. Fight in Afghanistan
By Jeff Stein | September 16, 2009 3:19 PM

A former top CIA counterterrorism official today questioned the
central tenet of the war in Afghanistan, saying a U.S. defeat and Al
Qaeda's return to a safe haven there would not pose a grave threat to
the United States.

Paul R. Pillar, a South Asia expert who was deputy chief of the CIA's
Counterterrorism Center in the late 1990s, argued in a Washington Post
Op-ed piece that Al Qaeda's haven in Afghanistan was not critical to
the success of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and would be even less so
today.

"How important to terrorist groups is any physical haven?"  Pillar
asked.


"More to the point: How much does a haven affect the danger of
terrorist attacks against U.S. interests, especially the U.S.
homeland? The answer to the second question is: not nearly as much as
unstated assumptions underlying the current debate seem to suppose."
"When a group has a haven," Pillar went on, "it will use it for such
purposes as basic training of recruits. But the operations most
important to future terrorist attacks do not need such a home, and few
recruits are required for even very deadly terrorism."

"Consider," he added: "The preparations most important to the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but,
rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight
schools in the United States." ... (cont)

"chatnoir"  wrote ...

> http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/09/excia-official-challenges-logi.html#more
>
> headline:
>
> Ex-CIA Official Challenges Logic of U.S. Fight in Afghanistan
> By Jeff Stein | September 16, 2009 3:19 PM
>
> A former top CIA counterterrorism official today questioned the
> central tenet of the war in Afghanistan, saying a U.S. defeat and Al
> Qaeda's return to a safe haven there would not pose a grave threat to
> the United States.

Coupled to that is the assertion that, "if we weren't fighting them in 
Afghanistan / Pakistan / wherever, we'd be fighting them over here".

There's no evidence that those who may be a threat are locked-down where the 
fighting is or the fighting is in anyway preventing those who would from 
acting. It seems to be typical political fear-mongering designed to keep 
people supporting the current course.

Not so sure that I agree a US defeat would not pose a grave threat to the 
US; it would likely affect the way the entire world views the US and its 
military capabilities ( more so in terms of US offensive capability rather 
than defence ). However, with that said, bogged-down in Afghanistan for 
eight years and potentially staring defeat in the face, the damage has 
likely already been done. There is however a subtle distinction between "not 
winning" and "lost". The latter will have a major impact on the American 
psyche just as Vietnam did, and who can tell what long term affect that will 
have.