NBC's Lester Holt answers your questions about Afghanistan

Joint US-Afghan operations are becoming more common, and so are the risks. NBC's Lester Holt reports.

See our full coverage on international hot spots crucial to U.S. foreign policy ahead of elections in our At the Brink series here. And tune in today to special coverage on all NBC News platforms from NBC’s team of anchors and correspondents deployed in five countries across the region.

Lester Holt, NBC News' anchor, is in Afghanistan reporting on the state of the U.S. mission there 11 years after the start of the war. 

What is the state of the war? Where are the Taliban?  How much longer will U.S. troops be there? What about all the repeat deployments for U.S. soldiers?

Lester answered reader questions about Afghanistan earlier today.

Please click on the box below to replay the informative chat. 

 From Lester Holt: For US soldiers, repeat deployments 'definitely take a toll'


 

Discuss this post

War? What WAR? Do they mean the illegal invasion and military overthrow of a sovereign nation?

Or are we still clinging onto the idea that we can force democracy, freedom and US-funded socialism onto other people in other countries?

On the plus side we did increase their national GDP tenfold. Afghanistan went from making ~8% of the world's opium to producing 95% of the world supply. That has to result in more jobs too!

  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Mon Oct 1, 2012 3:14 PM EDT

No "Patriott" I believe the American reaction is warranted and based on Afghanistan harboring the mastermind of the 9/11 attack that killed 2,700 innocents. After giving Afghanistan adequate time to comply with a legitimate request to make bin Laden available, the United States actually demonstrated an extremely humane approach by not detonating a 50 megaton nuclear device over their most populace city as a reinforcing point to a strong argument. One hundred years from now when history for this period is written, it will come to light that all the major powers held their breath for twenty four hours waiting to see just how the US might react. I'd bet you that there were a few who worried that our response might be more biblical than it was. On the face of it, the US showed remarkable restraint in light of the nature of the attack and the casualities. Set aside for a moment the human tragedy for a second and calculate the monetary damage done on 9/11...Afghanistan earned itself a devastation, a decimation and there are more than a few who believe we haven't given them enough grief yet.

  • 1 vote
#4.1 - Mon Oct 1, 2012 6:23 PM EDT

Kind Colorado. The mountain air is clouding your eyes - or perhaps too much reliance upon the media as a source of truth. No one on the planet believes these 'justifications' for invasion except gullible Americans. Exceptionalism rules from sea to shining sea and blinds the minds and hearts of citizens who would otherwise call for the heads of those who are lying to us all.

THE REAL masterminds of the 9/11 attacks were in Washington, DC and other locations in America. Purpose: to justify a growing series of international invasions and wars (23 concurrent wars at present count), to destroy the authority of the constitution, to push the post-constitutional republic into a fascist police state and to supply the ruling oligarchs with all the cash they want at the expense of ourselves and our children.

Don't believe me? Have you been to NYC-ground zero? I was there. What caused the collapse of WTC7? According to government lies, the 40 story building collapsed because it was 'nervous' - sympthetic vibrations or some such rubbish. Yet the little church/chapel across the street did not suffer so much as a cracked pane of glass. 9/11 was a very skillful demolition job. Nothing more.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

    #4.2 - Thu Oct 4, 2012 12:25 PM EDT
    Reply

    Russia was defeated in Afghanistan. And from the sound of it, now America. How is that possible,

    Lester?

      Reply#5 - Tue Oct 2, 2012 11:35 AM EDT

      What is the purpose anymore. Unless we continue to use drones on Pakistan to kill the Taliban then we should just leave. This is a tribal area that has no logic in what they do. Travesty.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#6 - Tue Oct 2, 2012 3:39 PM EDT

      Conventional logic suggests a goal. That's how you know you've won or lost.

      When goals are not established the obvious logic is that the purpose of waging war is simply to wage war. There is no goal except to make as many defense contractors as wealthy as possible and to keep the American people in line - like a herd of mindless cattle.

      With the exception of Viet Nam, no place where America has fought has been completely abandoned. The military & three letter agencies ALWAYS leave a presence. The war in Iraq continues as a shadow war and the war in Afghanistan and -whatever 'stan- goes on and on.

      The next step is to secure Syria - not scheduled until after the election. After that, the invasion of Iran is a possibility. When that happens, you'd better hold onto your tighty whiteys because things will get VERY dicey.

      but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

        #6.1 - Thu Oct 4, 2012 12:12 PM EDT
        Reply

        Our military know how to win a war, but remember this is a war directed by politicians, not the military. We have announced to the enemy, our allies, and the world that we will be leaving in 2014. We didn't say we are going to win the war by then, only that we will leave then. If not committed to win the war, which we aren't, then get our troops out of there now. To stay is to conclude there is a political gain and the lives of our troops are expendable (for political reasons) even though we do not intend to win. Not having a goal to win by 2014, then why stay, and what is the political gain that is worth the lives of those who are in it to win?

          Reply#7 - Wed Oct 3, 2012 8:08 AM EDT

          This is a politically directed war, not military directed. Our government announced to the enemy, allies, and the rest of the world that we will leave in 2014. There is no mention of winning the war, jut that we will leave. What is the political gain to leave our troops there (who's mission is to win), hamstrung by politicians, with no commitment to "win?" If we don't have a commitment to win, why stay til 2014 and expend more USA lives?

            Reply#8 - Wed Oct 3, 2012 8:20 AM EDT

            When can we start getting opium back?????

            • 1 vote
            Reply#9 - Wed Oct 3, 2012 1:10 PM EDT

            "You cannot kill or capture your way out of this war." - DOD

            These wars are inspired by defense contractors who make a fortune every time a gun or bomb goes off. There is NO basic strategy for winning. Never has been. To win, is not the object here. The object is to provide an excuse for milking America out of huge expenditures.

            No empire has ever lasted long by supporting extended warfare.

            Listen to all the candidates for office; none of them seriously consider cut backs in military spending. Does America really need a military that is larger than the next ten nations combined? A navy that's larger than the next 17 nations combined? Yes, if you listen to the politicans, the military and the defense contractors. No, if you listen to your own wallet.

            but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

              Reply#10 - Thu Oct 4, 2012 11:24 AM EDT
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.