The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
We've also kidnapped, tortured and murdered innocents in Afghanistan who were turned over to our forces by warlords, criminals and bounty hunters. Cruelty and brutality is part of the American "Brand" in the eyes of Afghanistan as well.
Also, while it may seem easier to conquer a scattered and divided Taliban, this in reality makes it far more difficult. There will always remain some unconquered Taliban warlord who will find it supremely easy to find support, while the people of Afghanistan, in their hearts, will always resent us, and any government we support/impose on them.
Mark my words. This is doomed to fail.
Remember, the job of the resistor isn't to win. It's to not lose. That's all that is required to defeat us.
Would you really say the US is unstable? I mean, come on, you're sitting on the internet posting on a debate forum.
And if we're going to pull out historical precedent, the British fought probably the most successful counterinsurgency ever in a time of incredible global and economic instability, especially for them, in Malaysia. Because they were realistic, worked with parts of Malaysian society that were anti-communist, and were willing to stick it out, they eventually won handily.
Would you really say the US is unstable? I mean, come on, you're sitting on the internet posting on a debate forum.
And if we're going to pull out historical precedent, the British fought probably the most successful counterinsurgency ever in a time of incredible global and economic instability, especially for them, in Malaysia. Because they were realistic, worked with parts of Malaysian society that were anti-communist, and were willing to stick it out, they eventually won handily.
Compared to years past, the country is unstable, we just do a really good job of sweeping the ugly stuff under the rug. It's not like the Great Depression where all you had was the radio and all they talked about was the depression. With the internet and television, we've got so many ways to just ignore things. There are problems that need to be dealt with in this country, and it would be a welcome change to see our leaders tackle those problems with the same fervor they usually reserve for liberating the shit out of some third world oil well.
aseriesofchasms on
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.
But it's an important perspective to consider; not all the founding fathers were going for the same ideal, and there were plenty of colonial splinter groups, all of them view by the crown in the same way. And George Washington certainly wasn't the head of the movement, he was part of a collective.
While the settings and justifiactions may be different, the belief of fighting for an ideal is the same. While Afghanistan may not have a unified ideal that they are fighting for, it's there.
Okay. It's similar to the extent that both situations involve groups of people who believe something or somethings.
I'm not sure how this is a particularly enlightening thing to point out.
And I'm not using the Godfather quote to completely summate the entire state of affairs there, but there is some truth to it. Our soldiers are over there doing their job, theirs are protecting their way of life.
That's a huge overgeneralization. As I argued, many people in Afghanistan are not ideologues; they are Muslims because Islam is the only brand they are familiar with. Many are illiterate. Few understand the actual theology of Islam. Few know anything about a Caliphate. This characterization includes many people belonging to the "Taliban." They have local, tribal concerns, not global, ideological concerns.
And as far as the civilians are concerned, if everytime you see someone with a gun, and something bad happens, any one with a gun is going to be persona non grata to you.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
How can the U.S, which is in the middle of an economic downturn, with the national debt at it's highest in the country's history with no signs of going down, an almost ten percent unemployment rate, and rampant government corruption and hypocrisy (on both sides, mind you) be expected to stabilize a country half way around the world? We've yet to be able to stabilize ourselves from our current mess, part of the reason being funds divided between two war zones.
We fought WW2 with more than 100% debt; politics were just as divisive then and unemployment was worse. Judging from your "both sides" comment you seem to be a species of independent who needs to convince himself that both sides are "just as bad" to justify your continued status as an independent. One side is clearly better, and Obama's administration appears capable and pragmatic. Calling our country "unstable" is fine in the context of first-world democracies—since almost half of our country is made up of insane and/or theocratic Republicans—but comparing it to the instability in Afghanistan is just rhetorical nonsense.
Would you really say the US is unstable? I mean, come on, you're sitting on the internet posting on a debate forum.
And if we're going to pull out historical precedent, the British fought probably the most successful counterinsurgency ever in a time of incredible global and economic instability, especially for them, in Malaysia. Because they were realistic, worked with parts of Malaysian society that were anti-communist, and were willing to stick it out, they eventually won handily.
Compared to years past, the country is unstable, we just do a really good job of sweeping the ugly stuff under the rug. It's not like the Great Depression where all you had was the radio and all they talked about was the depression. With the internet and television, we've got so many ways to just ignore things. There are problems that need to be dealt with in this country, and it would be a welcome change to see our leaders tackle those problems with the same fervor they usually reserve for liberating the shit out of some third world oil well.
There is actually a very active public dialogue occurring right now in this country about the future of some very important stuff, but if you're too cynical to see that, or just blind to it, well, I feel bad for you son
because we got 99 problems but liberating the shit of some third world oil well ain't one
We've also kidnapped, tortured and murdered innocents in Afghanistan who were turned over to our forces by warlords, criminals and bounty hunters. Cruelty and brutality is part of the American "Brand" in the eyes of Afghanistan as well.
Also, while it may seem easier to conquer a scattered and divided Taliban, this in reality makes it far more difficult. There will always remain some unconquered Taliban warlord who will find it supremely easy to find support, while the people of Afghanistan, in their hearts, will always resent us, and any government we support/impose on them.
Mark my words. This is doomed to fail.
Remember, the job of the resistor isn't to win. It's to not lose. That's all that is required to defeat us.
People said the same shit through out most of the Iraq war. They aren't saying it anymore.
People need to realize that this isn't Afghanistan vs. America. This is really Afghanistan vs. Afghanistan. The Coalition is just trying to help their favored side. When it comes down to it, Afghanistan is going end up deciding its own fate. The only reason Iraq is more stable now is because enough Iraqis decided they were done working with the insurgents and started fighting them.
I see a lot of people referring to success in Afghanistan, but exactly does that entail?
Complete elimination of every single insurgent? Or, is the goal here to eventually bring the Taliban (and others) to the bargaining table, to secure some sort of deal, or at least until the Afghan government is anything close to functioning? Or are we looking to occupy the country indefinitely?
I see a lot of people talking in broad generalizations, and making sweeping statements about the end of empires or protecting America against terrorists, but I don't see whole lot on actual physical goals, and metrics.
We destroy jobs every time we blow up a civillian structure, and every time we burn a crop. But we're not making new jobs, or not fast enough anyway. We need to give them something to do other than shoot each other, basically.
It's tough to build up a civilian economy when there is a war going on in your country. At this point most of the jobs created will be involved with building up civilian infrastructure. We learned in Iraq that this doesn't go well when your enemy is still active in the area. Either they can simply destroy anything you build or even worse, the people you are paying to build it are working with them and your money goes directly into their pockets.
One of the success stories of Iraq is the slow but steady build up of the Iraqi Army. Afghans will do a much better job fighting the Taliban than foreigners once they have enough training, experience, equipment and numbers. It takes time but this needs to happen before Afghanistan can effectively start focusing on civilian jobs.
Tough to build up a civilian economy in a time of war? Let's not forget WWII pulling our sorry broke asses out of a sever depression.
Keep in mind that mainland America was never attacked during WWII. It's a lot easier to build infrastructure, and promote stable government, when said infrastructure isn't also being simultaneously destroyed.
I see a lot of people talking in broad generalizations, and making sweeping statements about the end of empires or protecting America against terrorists, but I don't see whole lot on actual physical goals, and metrics.
That's a good fucking point. I referred to Malaysia a little earlier, and in that situation, the British definitely knew what they want - defeat the communist insurgents as a military threat and turn the Malaysians against communism. Now, whether things were done ethically or morally is a matter of some debate, but because they clarified what they wanted and were willing to stick it out, things worked out pretty damn well for them.
But it's an important perspective to consider; not all the founding fathers were going for the same ideal, and there were plenty of colonial splinter groups, all of them view by the crown in the same way. And George Washington certainly wasn't the head of the movement, he was part of a collective.
While the settings and justifiactions may be different, the belief of fighting for an ideal is the same. While Afghanistan may not have a unified ideal that they are fighting for, it's there.
Okay. It's similar to the extent that both situations involve groups of people who believe something or somethings.
I'm not sure how this is a particularly enlightening thing to point out.
And I'm not using the Godfather quote to completely summate the entire state of affairs there, but there is some truth to it. Our soldiers are over there doing their job, theirs are protecting their way of life.
That's a huge overgeneralization. As I argued, many people in Afghanistan are not ideologues; they are Muslims because Islam is the only brand they are familiar with. Many are illiterate. Few understand the actual theology of Islam. Few know anything about a Caliphate. This characterization includes many people belonging to the "Taliban." They have local, tribal concerns, not global, ideological concerns.
And as far as the civilians are concerned, if everytime you see someone with a gun, and something bad happens, any one with a gun is going to be persona non grata to you.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
How can the U.S, which is in the middle of an economic downturn, with the national debt at it's highest in the country's history with no signs of going down, an almost ten percent unemployment rate, and rampant government corruption and hypocrisy (on both sides, mind you) be expected to stabilize a country half way around the world? We've yet to be able to stabilize ourselves from our current mess, part of the reason being funds divided between two war zones.
We fought WW2 with more than 100% debt; politics were just as divisive then and unemployment was worse. Judging from your "both sides" comment you seem to be a species of independent who needs to convince himself that both sides are "just as bad" to justify your continued status as an independent. One side is clearly better, and Obama's administration appears capable and pragmatic. Calling our country "unstable" is fine in the context of first-world democracies—since almost half of our country is made up of insane and/or theocratic Republicans—but comparing it to the instability in Afghanistan is just rhetorical nonsense.
I'm not comparing our situation to the one in Afghanistan, the majority of us still have indoor plumbing. What I'm saying is that if, as powerful as we are, we can't right our current issues in our own country, how can we expect to do it in a place so much worse off?
And my hypocrisy comment is referring more to senate and congressional representatives. While I hold no official party, I tend to lean more Democrat, but to think that one party in of itself is inherently better than another is ludicrous and can lead to a lack of accountability for those in charge. There is stupidity on both sides, this is just fact, no political organization is right all the time. For full disclosure, I personally don't believe in the two party system, I feel that it creates divides along party lines that wouldn't exist if there wasn't an organization shouting "this is what WE think!" but I understand why the system is in place, and I think the system can keep succeeding. But if no one is standing around in the middle looking to the left and judging and looking to the right and judging, then nothing would ever get done.
And while on the outset each group's concerns are more regional in nature, to them it is an idealogy and a global thing. While their perspective is off, it's still there.
aseriesofchasms on
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
We've also kidnapped, tortured and murdered innocents in Afghanistan who were turned over to our forces by warlords, criminals and bounty hunters. Cruelty and brutality is part of the American "Brand" in the eyes of Afghanistan as well.
Also, while it may seem easier to conquer a scattered and divided Taliban, this in reality makes it far more difficult. There will always remain some unconquered Taliban warlord who will find it supremely easy to find support, while the people of Afghanistan, in their hearts, will always resent us, and any government we support/impose on them.
Mark my words. This is doomed to fail.
Remember, the job of the resistor isn't to win. It's to not lose. That's all that is required to defeat us.
People said the same shit through out most of the Iraq war. They aren't saying it anymore.
People need to realize that this isn't Afghanistan vs. America. This is really Afghanistan vs. Afghanistan. The Coalition is just trying to help their favored side. When it comes down to it, Afghanistan is going end up deciding its own fate. The only reason Iraq is more stable now is because enough Iraqis decided they were done working with the insurgents and started fighting them.
I'm still saying it about Iraq. The news coming out of Iraq lately backs me up on this.
We've also kidnapped, tortured and murdered innocents in Afghanistan who were turned over to our forces by warlords, criminals and bounty hunters. Cruelty and brutality is part of the American "Brand" in the eyes of Afghanistan as well.
Also, while it may seem easier to conquer a scattered and divided Taliban, this in reality makes it far more difficult. There will always remain some unconquered Taliban warlord who will find it supremely easy to find support, while the people of Afghanistan, in their hearts, will always resent us, and any government we support/impose on them.
Mark my words. This is doomed to fail.
Remember, the job of the resistor isn't to win. It's to not lose. That's all that is required to defeat us.
People said the same shit through out most of the Iraq war. They aren't saying it anymore.
People need to realize that this isn't Afghanistan vs. America. This is really Afghanistan vs. Afghanistan. The Coalition is just trying to help their favored side. When it comes down to it, Afghanistan is going end up deciding its own fate. The only reason Iraq is more stable now is because enough Iraqis decided they were done working with the insurgents and started fighting them.
I'm still saying it about Iraq. The news coming out of Iraq lately backs me up on this.
Yeah, everything isn't cream and roses in Iraq, if you're paying attention.
Would you really say the US is unstable? I mean, come on, you're sitting on the internet posting on a debate forum.
And if we're going to pull out historical precedent, the British fought probably the most successful counterinsurgency ever in a time of incredible global and economic instability, especially for them, in Malaysia. Because they were realistic, worked with parts of Malaysian society that were anti-communist, and were willing to stick it out, they eventually won handily.
Compared to years past, the country is unstable, we just do a really good job of sweeping the ugly stuff under the rug. It's not like the Great Depression where all you had was the radio and all they talked about was the depression. With the internet and television, we've got so many ways to just ignore things. There are problems that need to be dealt with in this country, and it would be a welcome change to see our leaders tackle those problems with the same fervor they usually reserve for liberating the shit out of some third world oil well.
There is actually a very active public dialogue occurring right now in this country about the future of some very important stuff, but if you're too cynical to see that, or just blind to it, well, I feel bad for you son
because we got 99 problems but liberating the shit of some third world oil well ain't one
To recognize that bad things are still going on isn't cynical. I don't think the country is on the verge of collapsing (far from it) and God knows we are far and away better off right now than in recent years and the outlook for the futre is getting brighter and brighter. But we're still locked in a war we may not be able to win, and our economy, while showing signs of recovery, could be doing a little bit better. Active public dialogue is fantastic, and I hope beyond hope that it leads to better days for all of us. I hold my optimism in sharp relief to reality, if only to try and better prepare myself for if the shit does happen to hit the fan. Being overtly optimistic lead to a president getting elected, closing down an inhumane military prison, injecting a much needed shot in the ass of the automotive industry that kept thousands from losing jobs, and calling for an exit strategy for our current military operations in the middle east, only to watch his approval rating slide ever downward.
aseriesofchasms on
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.
I'm not comparing our situation to the one in Afghanistan, the majority of us still have indoor plumbing. What I'm saying is that if, as powerful as we are, we can't right our current issues in our own country, how can we expect to do it in a place so much worse off?
Because we did it during WW2, and most recently in Serbia?
I'm denying that our country is filled with problems. Those problems do not mean we need to all the sudden become isolationists. Our involvement in foreign countries can be evaluated largely independent of health care and the economy.
I tend to lean more Democrat, but to think that one party in of itself is inherently better than another is ludicrous
What's ludicrous is when Independents simulataneously "lean Democrat" and say "thinking that one party is inherently better is ludicrous."
When the Democrats stop being better then I won't be a Democrat. Feigning this aura of being "above the fray" does nothing except massage your ego. It's not like you have any more weight criticizing Obama's Afghanistan policy than I do as a Democrat.
And while on the outset each group's concerns are more regional in nature, to them it is an idealogy and a global thing. While their perspective is off, it's still there.
No, it's not, not according to people who have walked across Afghanistan, to journalists who have covered Afghanistan, and to many army officers and anthropologists who have been in Afghanistan. Are you at all familiar with the region?
Islam is a "global thing" but you simply have no basis to characterize it as a globally motivating ideology for most Afghans. It's more complex than that.
I'm not comparing our situation to the one in Afghanistan, the majority of us still have indoor plumbing. What I'm saying is that if, as powerful as we are, we can't right our current issues in our own country, how can we expect to do it in a place so much worse off?
Because we did it during WW2, and most recently in Serbia?
I'm denying that our country is filled with problems. Those problems do not mean we need to all the sudden become isolationists. Our involvement in foreign countries can be evaluated largely independent of health care and the economy.
I tend to lean more Democrat, but to think that one party in of itself is inherently better than another is ludicrous
What's ludicrous is when Independents simulataneously "lean Democrat" and say "thinking that one party is inherently better is ludicrous."
When the Democrats stop being better then I won't be a Democrat. Feigning this aura of being "above the fray" does nothing except massage your ego. It's not like you have any more weight criticizing Obama's Afghanistan policy than I do as a Democrat.
And while on the outset each group's concerns are more regional in nature, to them it is an idealogy and a global thing. While their perspective is off, it's still there.
No, it's not, not according to people who have walked across Afghanistan, to journalists who have covered Afghanistan, and to many army officers and anthropologists who have been in Afghanistan. Are you at all familiar with the region?
Islam is a "global thing" but you simply have no basis to characterize it as a globally motivating ideology for most Afghans. It's more complex than that.
Our "stabilazation" after WWII involved a military occupation of Japan (that continues to this day) and turning our backs while Russia and Britain divided up Eastern Europe with no regard for cultural regions. The U.S can get through a war no problem, but we seem to almost consistently fuck up the follow through.
aseriesofchasms on
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.
Leave them alone.
Take the troops away.
Let them realize the majority of their current problems are their own fault.
Take the policy decisions away from people who have financial ties to perpetual 'war'.
We did leave them alone. Then 9/11 happened. Now our policy has changed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the general perception here seems to be that US military policy in Afghanistan is nothing more than "huuur, let's go kill dem Muslims." Contrary to what you see in the news, we ARE doing police action and nation-building. Progress is slow simply because this is all so new. Not only are we trying to rebuild one of the poorest nations from scratch, but we're dealing with vast cultural differences as well as a lot of mistrust due to previous Western policy or perceived policy.
I agree with sanstodo, this can be won, it's just going to take a lot of time and patience. The vast majority of Afghanis do not like the Taliban. But they follow them because in certain areas, they're the ones with the guns.
Wut? Our military bases in Saudi Arabia gave Bin Laden two seperate rallying cries to organize and carry out the attacks. Before 2001 we were HARDLY minding our own business and letting the Middle East be.
Nation building does not work if the population resents your presence. Any government we help to build up has the taint of illegitimacy.
We had zero presence in Afghanistan back then. As soon as Charlie Wilson finished his war, we said, "Bye!" and left without looking back. Then a civil war broke out, the Taliban won, and now we have a regime that willingly harbored Osama and his associates, giving them a place to train, plan, and build up their organization.
Believe it or not, not every Afghani hates us and resents the very air we breathe. They're more pragmatic than that. As long as they can get decent security, then they'll have a chance to build up jobs and infrastructure.
And for every clusterfuck like that New York Times article posted earlier, there's a success story. But who wants to read about some new alliance with a critical tribal leader as opposed to reading about dumb Americans who like to wantonly bomb civilians?
Aeneas on
Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
Leave them alone.
Take the troops away.
Let them realize the majority of their current problems are their own fault.
Take the policy decisions away from people who have financial ties to perpetual 'war'.
We did leave them alone. Then 9/11 happened. Now our policy has changed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the general perception here seems to be that US military policy in Afghanistan is nothing more than "huuur, let's go kill dem Muslims." Contrary to what you see in the news, we ARE doing police action and nation-building. Progress is slow simply because this is all so new. Not only are we trying to rebuild one of the poorest nations from scratch, but we're dealing with vast cultural differences as well as a lot of mistrust due to previous Western policy or perceived policy.
I agree with sanstodo, this can be won, it's just going to take a lot of time and patience. The vast majority of Afghanis do not like the Taliban. But they follow them because in certain areas, they're the ones with the guns.
Wut? Our military bases in Saudi Arabia gave Bin Laden two seperate rallying cries to organize and carry out the attacks. Before 2001 we were HARDLY minding our own business and letting the Middle East be.
Nation building does not work if the population resents your presence. Any government we help to build up has the taint of illegitimacy.
We had zero presence in Afghanistan back then. As soon as Charlie Wilson finished his war, we said, "Bye!" and left without looking back. Then a civil war broke out, the Taliban won, and now we have a regime that willingly harbored Osama and his associates, giving them a place to train, plan, and build up their organization.
Believe it or not, not every Afghani hates us and resents the very air we breathe. They're more pragmatic than that. As long as they can get decent security, then they'll have a chance to build up jobs and infrastructure.
And for every clusterfuck like that New York Times article posted earlier, there's a success story. But who wants to read about some new alliance with a critical tribal leader as opposed to reading about dumb Americans who like to wantonly bomb civilians?
Even so, everything depends on the Karzai government, which has just outright proven that it is not willing to cede power in a peaceful manner. Is propping up such a government worth the effort?
Likewise, how do we prevent the Swat valley and Waziristan from becoming similar breeding grounds for terrorists. We cannot invade Pakistan.
We've also kidnapped, tortured and murdered innocents in Afghanistan who were turned over to our forces by warlords, criminals and bounty hunters. Cruelty and brutality is part of the American "Brand" in the eyes of Afghanistan as well.
Also, while it may seem easier to conquer a scattered and divided Taliban, this in reality makes it far more difficult. There will always remain some unconquered Taliban warlord who will find it supremely easy to find support, while the people of Afghanistan, in their hearts, will always resent us, and any government we support/impose on them.
Mark my words. This is doomed to fail.
Remember, the job of the resistor isn't to win. It's to not lose. That's all that is required to defeat us.
People said the same shit through out most of the Iraq war. They aren't saying it anymore.
People need to realize that this isn't Afghanistan vs. America. This is really Afghanistan vs. Afghanistan. The Coalition is just trying to help their favored side. When it comes down to it, Afghanistan is going end up deciding its own fate. The only reason Iraq is more stable now is because enough Iraqis decided they were done working with the insurgents and started fighting them.
I'm still saying it about Iraq. The news coming out of Iraq lately backs me up on this.
Yeah, everything isn't cream and roses in Iraq, if you're paying attention.
True, Iraq is probably going to be dealing with insurgents and extremists for decades as a result of the occupation. The difference is that usually Iraq is dealing with them instead of foreign troops these days. That should be the goal in Afghanistan as well. Iraq 2009 is in better shape than Iraq 2003-2007. Iraq is also in better shape than Afghanistan.
Our "stabilazation" after WWII involved a military occupation of Japan (that continues to this day) and turning our backs while Russia and Britain divided up Eastern Europe with no regard for cultural regions. The U.S can get through a war no problem, but we seem to almost consistently fuck up the follow through.
Alright, sorry, you need to brush up on your history. Ever hear of the Marshall Plan? The UN?
Edit: To clarify, you honestly strike me as a person who wants to blame our own country for everything that's gone wrong, both in recent history and in Afghanistan. But you'll find in Afghanistan that US intentions have been remarkably "good", even if it's poorly implemented at times - US soldiers often participate in projects to help build roads, distribute humanitarian aid, get power generators up and running, install running water, etc. Even though when you look back at what Americans were thinking and saying in 2001 and 2002 - something akin to "We came there to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and we're all outta bubble gum," we appeared to be there only to knock the Taliban out, it was understood by anyone with experience in foreign policy that we couldn't leave it the way it was.
Besides that, on your quote there: no one except the Soviets had anything to do with Eastern Europe's divisions after the war; after all, Soviet armies were fucking parked everywhere that constitutes Eastern Europe. And if you look at the situation of every place the Western Allies occupied at the end of the war (with the exception of many British/French/Belgian African colonies), they're all pretty much better off now than they were relatively before or during the war, from Germany and Japan and all of Western Europe (which was completely devastated) to the Phillipines and South Korea.
Our "stabilazation" after WWII involved a military occupation of Japan (that continues to this day) and turning our backs while Russia and Britain divided up Eastern Europe with no regard for cultural regions. The U.S can get through a war no problem, but we seem to almost consistently fuck up the follow through.
Alright, sorry, you need to brush up on your history. Ever hear of the Marshall Plan? The UN?
see, you're simply taking the things that succeeded to somehow debase the things that went wrong. Our mistakes started a chain of events that we're still dealing with to this day because we're all sitting around patting ourselves on the back because we made a few right decisions. We also made some wrong ones, and those just don't instantly vanish.
I'm not discrediting the steps forward that were made, but we as a society cannot succeed without admitting and confronting our failures. In the celebrations of victory, we forget all too quick that every shot fired, every borderline redrawn, and every policy passed can and will have repercussions in the future.
aseriesofchasms on
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.
Our "stabilazation" after WWII involved a military occupation of Japan (that continues to this day) and turning our backs while Russia and Britain divided up Eastern Europe with no regard for cultural regions. The U.S can get through a war no problem, but we seem to almost consistently fuck up the follow through.
Alright, sorry, you need to brush up on your history. Ever hear of the Marshall Plan? The UN?
Edit: To clarify, you honestly strike me as a person who wants to blame our own country for everything that's gone wrong, both in recent history and in Afghanistan. But you'll find in Afghanistan that US intentions have been remarkably "good", even if it's poorly implemented at times - US soldiers often participate in projects to help build roads, distribute humanitarian aid, get power generators up and running, install running water, etc. Even though when you look back at what Americans were thinking and saying in 2001 and 2002 - something akin to "We came there to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and we're all outta bubble gum," we appeared to be there only to knock the Taliban out, it was understood by anyone with experience in foreign policy that we couldn't leave it the way it was.
Besides that, on your quote there: no one except the Soviets had anything to do with Eastern Europe's divisions after the war; after all, Soviet armies were fucking parked everywhere that constitutes Eastern Europe. And if you look at the situation of every place the Western Allies occupied at the end of the war (with the exception of many British/French/Belgian African colonies), they're all pretty much better off now than they were relatively before or during the war, from Germany and Japan and all of Western Europe (which was completely devastated) to the Phillipines and South Korea.
EDIT in reply to your EDIT: To clarify, I'm not putting the blame for everything that has gone wrong completely on our shoulders. Our forceful decimation of Japan's military turned the country into an economic powerhouse (this past year notwithstanding), and as much as I can't stand Former President Reagan, he played a sizeable part in Germany eventually becoming a unified country again. I want nothing more than for Iraq and Afghanistan to turn shit around and become self-sustaining nations not fueld by war and hate, but I also want to see our men and women return, and I want us as country to be able to put energy into helping ourselves for a few years. History has shown time and time again that we don't perform well with so many different points of focus. My hope is that if we are able every once in a while to be honest and say. yea we kind of screwed the pooch on that one, we can move on to what we can do to fix it.
aseriesofchasms on
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.
Sure, that's great and all, but it doesn't help with figuring out what our policy should be in Afghanistan. You think fundamentalist Islam (which the Taliban, as Qingu noted, is hardly even anymore) will outlast in Afghanistan. But why? What about our policies will make this a reality? Why can't we drive them away from it by building infrastructure and not killing civilians and giving them jobs and education?
Edit: haha this was in reply to your first post. Sorry!
Sure, that's great and all, but it doesn't help with figuring out what our policy should be in Afghanistan. You think fundamentalist Islam (which the Taliban, as Qingu noted, is hardly even anymore) will outlast in Afghanistan. But why? What about our policies will make this a reality? Why can't we drive them away from it by building infrastructure and not killing civilians and giving them jobs and education?
Edit: haha this was in reply to your first post. Sorry!
What concerns me is what I take to be a general lack of understanding. While most of us here know a thing or two about what we're talking about, I fell that our elected leaders don't, because they're not thinking jsut about Afghanistan, but also healthcare reform, taxes, balancing the budget, and what they can do to get re-elected, so I don't think the logistics of this mission really crossed their minds until after the fact. I don't know what the strategy should be in Afghanistan(this is why I don't hold a public office), because I can't think of a moment in U.S history where we were involved in a conflict like this that we were able to pull off the end game (Vietnam, Panama are the two examples that come to mind, even though we were'nt really supposed to know about Panama). WE have to get to a point where we are injecting the topic with some humanity, so we can figure how to band these people together, how to build up the leaders who aren't just as corrupt as the leaders before, and we definantly cannot try to push some of our already established beliefs onto them. The reason our democracy is able to sustain itself is because at the end of the day, no other country is telling what our rules should be.
aseriesofchasms on
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.
Well, I've lately been very critical of the Afghan war, but Gordon Brown was just on CSPAN making some pretty damn excellent points. In particular, in 2002, there were 1 million Afghanis in school, all boys. Now there are 6.6 million, 2 million of which are girls.
Would that we had Britian's politican discourse, good lord.
I hate how schizophrenic our foreign policy can be. Other countries ought to be aware that representative democracy makes the use of American force fickle and temporary.
As long as we've blown exorbitant amounts of cash and lives in attempting to stabilize Iraq/Afghanistan (again: thanks, Republicans, for deciding to bite off more than we could comfortably chew because 9/11 made you mad), it frustrates me to hear that we're not going to give it more time.
We have an obligation, incurred by the past administration, to leave these nations better off than we found them. That is beginning to be true in Iraq, but we're years away from it in Afghanistan. If people don't like the cost, then maybe they'll wise up and not vote for people who sound glib and aggressive when it comes to applying military force.
I hate how schizophrenic our foreign policy can be. Other countries ought to be aware that representative democracy makes the use of American force fickle and temporary.
As long as we've blown exorbitant amounts of cash and lives in attempting to stabilize Iraq/Afghanistan (again: thanks, Republicans, for deciding to bite off more than we could comfortably chew because 9/11 made you mad), it frustrates me to hear that we're not going to give it more time.
We have an obligation, incurred by the past administration, to leave these nations better off than we found them. That is beginning to be true in Iraq, but we're years away from it in Afghanistan. If people don't like the cost, then maybe they'll wise up and not vote for people who sound glib and aggressive when it comes to applying military force.
This sounds like a very nice sentiment!
Okay, what metrics are we going to use to judge how much progress we're making in Afghanistan. When does it become a "better country?" How much of a better country do we want?
And, ultimately, is there a date after which we say "fuck this, it's been X years, we out." Or is this an indefinite commitment?
Really, these are the questions that need to be answered, or I can't see this ending nicely.
Perfectly fair questions, though I think 'metrics' is ultimately a dodge. It's a subjective question as to when we've left a country better off than we found it, but I'm pretty sure Afghanistan fails that test in almost any way you could formulate it as of today.
You know what would help a lot in discussion about Afghanistan policy?
If people ditched the metric of "losing" or "winning" a war.
It pisses me off that people say we "lost" Vietnam. We killed 3 million Vietnamese people—and we easily could have killed 10 times that many if we wanted to. We didn't; Vietnam was not a war of attrition, even though it was often fought like one. Just like Iraq, it was a war ostensibly fought over ideology, stupidly using military means.
I wonder how much antipathy towards pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan comes from idiots who worry about American pride being butthurt if we don't "win." We need to realize that you cannot "win" a war against an ideology; the concept makes no sense.
A loss for NATO in Afgahnistan would be the Taliban regaining power in the country. Considering they've made considerable progress towards the capital of Pakistan - i.e. another country, this seems like a reasonable concern.
The fighting in the south at the moment is fucking brutal in modern terms.
Well, the insurgents (they're not just the Taliban) do have effective control over large parts of the country. Outside the cities, it's pretty hard to keep control of the countryside with the amount of troops we have. Which is why the commanders on the ground want, and need more troops if they're going to be able to more effectively combat the insurgents.
The thing is, though, is all this blowing up civilians doesn't usually go over very nicely with them, and this has a bit of a counter-productive effect. Couple that with extremely corrupt government officials, and a complete lack of progress on the democracy side of things, it doesn't look like we're "winning." Whatever that is.
Update: the Taliban now controls most of the country directly or indirectly. They've installed "shadow governors" in various provinces. They operate freely across the border with Pakistan. “The Taliban is trying to create trouble elsewhere to alleviate pressure” in the south, said one senior American intelligence official. “They’ve outmaneuvered us time and time again.”
Meanwhile, Karzai "won" an election widely criticized as fraudulent, essentially ruining any legitimacy his government had and likely cementing his reputation as an American client-king.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, Obama, who as of one month ago called Afghanistan a "war of necessity," is now reconsidering his "strategy." His party and most Americans are opposed to the war. But General McChrystal says we need a huge troop increase soon or we risk losing the war entirely. There is a perception that Obama is dragging his feet here.
For me, the essential question centers on what the hell is the "Taliban"? Is it a political institution that can be defeated and forced to surrender? Or is it a vague ideology that various political groups loosely identify with?
In any case, it's certainly going to be difficult for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan without giving the impression that he is a defeatist who flatly contradicts his recent statements about "war of necessity."
What is the Taliban? What are the Nazis? It's an ideology, a movement, and a group of armed extremists. They are pretty much everything that is antithetical to our existence. Their members engage in armed conflict with NATO soldiers and NATO backed Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan. Their rallying cries are "Death to the US" and "Death to the West".
And as far as their links to Al-Qaeda, they are very voluntary. No matter how much they knew about the planning of 9/11 beforehand, they went even further after to embrace Al-Qaeda.
What is the Taliban? What are the Nazis? It's an ideology, a movement, and a group of armed extremists. They are pretty much everything that is antithetical to our existence. Their members engage in armed conflict with NATO soldiers and NATO backed Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan. Their rallying cries are "Death to the US" and "Death to the West".
And as far as their links to Al-Qaeda, they are very voluntary. No matter how much they knew about the planning of 9/11 beforehand, they went even further after to embrace Al-Qaeda.
For all my doubts about the war, I am very tempted to back McChrystal's plan and support a troop increase for the reasons you've given here—even if it is a diffuse ideology. I don't really buy that Afghanistan is the "last level/graveyard of empires"; the Soviets had trouble because we gave material support to resistance fighters and there is no comparable counterweight to support the Taliban now.
On the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that this is just wounded pride motivating me to have this opinion. And the logic used to justify our continued war in Afghanistan is essentially the same as the logic used by Bush for Iraq. The Taliban do not have WMD's, but they might one day acquire them (by taking over Pakistan), therefore, we are right to attack them? The Taliban is a brutal, oppressive regime, therefore, it's justified to conquer them (despite massive civilian deaths) so that one day Afghanistan may be a better place?
Part of me wants to just dismiss this kind of logic entirely but another part is starting to feel more sympathy for Bush's foreign policy, apart from the lies and torture and whatnot.
If we weren't already there I would have my doubts about going in for just civilizing purposes. But now that we've expended the effort to get there, let's finish the job.
It's ridiculous to say it's impossible, of course it's possible. We just have to judge the cost of accomplishing it.
We've certainly been bloodied so far, but I think time is on our side and not the Taliban's.
1) Keep doing what we're doing - not really achieving anything at the moment, I haven't seen any predictions from anyone who has insight into the issue that we will have any modicum of success on the current path we're treading.
2) Withdraw. Likely to be a significant political defeat for Obama due to his pre election plans for Afghanistan. Afghanistan likely to be won over by Taliban and have some sort of fundamentalist Islamic government in place within months/ couple of years, which would obviously make all the countries who jumped on board for the war look quite stupid.
3) Escalation. Really only going to work if it is coupled with a significant decrease in civilian casualties as well as a decrease in western soldiers deaths. And long term I really don't know what the plan is, kill all the Taliban and no one will join them anymore?
Politically its a long term issue. If there is a massive increase in troops and thats not followed immediately by some metric of success well the comparisons to vietnam are going to become very appropriate. As much as I would like to see it, I really can't see a western withdrawal, would probably be too politically damaging to Obama, maybe when they pull the same surge tactic as Iraq and it fails there will be enough will to leave. Also the Taliban has become the same as the Al Qaeda boogey man. It's just a group of people with similar ideology (militant Islamism) in an area being generalised. Theres plenty of independant warlords and militia groups around Afghanistan that have been falsely labelled as Taliban (through false information etc) and bombed to hell by the Americans. And as a result surprisingly they now fight against the western forces.
What pisses me off about either war was the massive bombardment of civillian infrastructure during the invasions. Whats hard about just levelling millitary installations and leaving the power plants, water treatment plants and bridges alone? Its not like the movement of enemy tanks were at all a threat to a gunship wielding millitary.
What pisses me off about either war was the massive bombardment of civillian infrastructure during the invasions. Whats hard about just levelling millitary installations and leaving the power plants, water treatment plants and bridges alone? Its not like the movement of enemy tanks were at all a threat to a gunship wielding millitary.
If we do escalate, I hope that McChrystal is being honest about his "protect civilians" strategy.
What is the Taliban? What are the Nazis? It's an ideology, a movement, and a group of armed extremists. They are pretty much everything that is antithetical to our existence. Their members engage in armed conflict with NATO soldiers and NATO backed Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan. Their rallying cries are "Death to the US" and "Death to the West".
And as far as their links to Al-Qaeda, they are very voluntary. No matter how much they knew about the planning of 9/11 beforehand, they went even further after to embrace Al-Qaeda.
For all my doubts about the war, I am very tempted to back McChrystal's plan and support a troop increase for the reasons you've given here—even if it is a diffuse ideology. I don't really buy that Afghanistan is the "last level/graveyard of empires"; the Soviets had trouble because we gave material support to resistance fighters and there is no comparable counterweight to support the Taliban now.
On the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that this is just wounded pride motivating me to have this opinion. And the logic used to justify our continued war in Afghanistan is essentially the same as the logic used by Bush for Iraq. The Taliban do not have WMD's, but they might one day acquire them (by taking over Pakistan), therefore, we are right to attack them? The Taliban is a brutal, oppressive regime, therefore, it's justified to conquer them (despite massive civilian deaths) so that one day Afghanistan may be a better place?
Part of me wants to just dismiss this kind of logic entirely but another part is starting to feel more sympathy for Bush's foreign policy, apart from the lies and torture and whatnot.
I pretty much feel the same way and my feelings are regularly exacerbated when I read things like this.
Posts
Also, while it may seem easier to conquer a scattered and divided Taliban, this in reality makes it far more difficult. There will always remain some unconquered Taliban warlord who will find it supremely easy to find support, while the people of Afghanistan, in their hearts, will always resent us, and any government we support/impose on them.
Mark my words. This is doomed to fail.
Remember, the job of the resistor isn't to win. It's to not lose. That's all that is required to defeat us.
And if we're going to pull out historical precedent, the British fought probably the most successful counterinsurgency ever in a time of incredible global and economic instability, especially for them, in Malaysia. Because they were realistic, worked with parts of Malaysian society that were anti-communist, and were willing to stick it out, they eventually won handily.
Compared to years past, the country is unstable, we just do a really good job of sweeping the ugly stuff under the rug. It's not like the Great Depression where all you had was the radio and all they talked about was the depression. With the internet and television, we've got so many ways to just ignore things. There are problems that need to be dealt with in this country, and it would be a welcome change to see our leaders tackle those problems with the same fervor they usually reserve for liberating the shit out of some third world oil well.
I'm not sure how this is a particularly enlightening thing to point out.
That's a huge overgeneralization. As I argued, many people in Afghanistan are not ideologues; they are Muslims because Islam is the only brand they are familiar with. Many are illiterate. Few understand the actual theology of Islam. Few know anything about a Caliphate. This characterization includes many people belonging to the "Taliban." They have local, tribal concerns, not global, ideological concerns.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
We fought WW2 with more than 100% debt; politics were just as divisive then and unemployment was worse. Judging from your "both sides" comment you seem to be a species of independent who needs to convince himself that both sides are "just as bad" to justify your continued status as an independent. One side is clearly better, and Obama's administration appears capable and pragmatic. Calling our country "unstable" is fine in the context of first-world democracies—since almost half of our country is made up of insane and/or theocratic Republicans—but comparing it to the instability in Afghanistan is just rhetorical nonsense.
There is actually a very active public dialogue occurring right now in this country about the future of some very important stuff, but if you're too cynical to see that, or just blind to it, well, I feel bad for you son
because we got 99 problems but liberating the shit of some third world oil well ain't one
People said the same shit through out most of the Iraq war. They aren't saying it anymore.
People need to realize that this isn't Afghanistan vs. America. This is really Afghanistan vs. Afghanistan. The Coalition is just trying to help their favored side. When it comes down to it, Afghanistan is going end up deciding its own fate. The only reason Iraq is more stable now is because enough Iraqis decided they were done working with the insurgents and started fighting them.
Complete elimination of every single insurgent? Or, is the goal here to eventually bring the Taliban (and others) to the bargaining table, to secure some sort of deal, or at least until the Afghan government is anything close to functioning? Or are we looking to occupy the country indefinitely?
I see a lot of people talking in broad generalizations, and making sweeping statements about the end of empires or protecting America against terrorists, but I don't see whole lot on actual physical goals, and metrics.
Keep in mind that mainland America was never attacked during WWII. It's a lot easier to build infrastructure, and promote stable government, when said infrastructure isn't also being simultaneously destroyed.
That's a good fucking point. I referred to Malaysia a little earlier, and in that situation, the British definitely knew what they want - defeat the communist insurgents as a military threat and turn the Malaysians against communism. Now, whether things were done ethically or morally is a matter of some debate, but because they clarified what they wanted and were willing to stick it out, things worked out pretty damn well for them.
I'm not comparing our situation to the one in Afghanistan, the majority of us still have indoor plumbing. What I'm saying is that if, as powerful as we are, we can't right our current issues in our own country, how can we expect to do it in a place so much worse off?
And my hypocrisy comment is referring more to senate and congressional representatives. While I hold no official party, I tend to lean more Democrat, but to think that one party in of itself is inherently better than another is ludicrous and can lead to a lack of accountability for those in charge. There is stupidity on both sides, this is just fact, no political organization is right all the time. For full disclosure, I personally don't believe in the two party system, I feel that it creates divides along party lines that wouldn't exist if there wasn't an organization shouting "this is what WE think!" but I understand why the system is in place, and I think the system can keep succeeding. But if no one is standing around in the middle looking to the left and judging and looking to the right and judging, then nothing would ever get done.
And while on the outset each group's concerns are more regional in nature, to them it is an idealogy and a global thing. While their perspective is off, it's still there.
I'm still saying it about Iraq. The news coming out of Iraq lately backs me up on this.
Yeah, everything isn't cream and roses in Iraq, if you're paying attention.
To recognize that bad things are still going on isn't cynical. I don't think the country is on the verge of collapsing (far from it) and God knows we are far and away better off right now than in recent years and the outlook for the futre is getting brighter and brighter. But we're still locked in a war we may not be able to win, and our economy, while showing signs of recovery, could be doing a little bit better. Active public dialogue is fantastic, and I hope beyond hope that it leads to better days for all of us. I hold my optimism in sharp relief to reality, if only to try and better prepare myself for if the shit does happen to hit the fan. Being overtly optimistic lead to a president getting elected, closing down an inhumane military prison, injecting a much needed shot in the ass of the automotive industry that kept thousands from losing jobs, and calling for an exit strategy for our current military operations in the middle east, only to watch his approval rating slide ever downward.
I'm denying that our country is filled with problems. Those problems do not mean we need to all the sudden become isolationists. Our involvement in foreign countries can be evaluated largely independent of health care and the economy.
What's ludicrous is when Independents simulataneously "lean Democrat" and say "thinking that one party is inherently better is ludicrous."
When the Democrats stop being better then I won't be a Democrat. Feigning this aura of being "above the fray" does nothing except massage your ego. It's not like you have any more weight criticizing Obama's Afghanistan policy than I do as a Democrat.
No, it's not, not according to people who have walked across Afghanistan, to journalists who have covered Afghanistan, and to many army officers and anthropologists who have been in Afghanistan. Are you at all familiar with the region?
Islam is a "global thing" but you simply have no basis to characterize it as a globally motivating ideology for most Afghans. It's more complex than that.
Our "stabilazation" after WWII involved a military occupation of Japan (that continues to this day) and turning our backs while Russia and Britain divided up Eastern Europe with no regard for cultural regions. The U.S can get through a war no problem, but we seem to almost consistently fuck up the follow through.
We had zero presence in Afghanistan back then. As soon as Charlie Wilson finished his war, we said, "Bye!" and left without looking back. Then a civil war broke out, the Taliban won, and now we have a regime that willingly harbored Osama and his associates, giving them a place to train, plan, and build up their organization.
Believe it or not, not every Afghani hates us and resents the very air we breathe. They're more pragmatic than that. As long as they can get decent security, then they'll have a chance to build up jobs and infrastructure.
And for every clusterfuck like that New York Times article posted earlier, there's a success story. But who wants to read about some new alliance with a critical tribal leader as opposed to reading about dumb Americans who like to wantonly bomb civilians?
Even so, everything depends on the Karzai government, which has just outright proven that it is not willing to cede power in a peaceful manner. Is propping up such a government worth the effort?
Likewise, how do we prevent the Swat valley and Waziristan from becoming similar breeding grounds for terrorists. We cannot invade Pakistan.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
True, Iraq is probably going to be dealing with insurgents and extremists for decades as a result of the occupation. The difference is that usually Iraq is dealing with them instead of foreign troops these days. That should be the goal in Afghanistan as well. Iraq 2009 is in better shape than Iraq 2003-2007. Iraq is also in better shape than Afghanistan.
Alright, sorry, you need to brush up on your history. Ever hear of the Marshall Plan? The UN?
Edit: To clarify, you honestly strike me as a person who wants to blame our own country for everything that's gone wrong, both in recent history and in Afghanistan. But you'll find in Afghanistan that US intentions have been remarkably "good", even if it's poorly implemented at times - US soldiers often participate in projects to help build roads, distribute humanitarian aid, get power generators up and running, install running water, etc. Even though when you look back at what Americans were thinking and saying in 2001 and 2002 - something akin to "We came there to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and we're all outta bubble gum," we appeared to be there only to knock the Taliban out, it was understood by anyone with experience in foreign policy that we couldn't leave it the way it was.
Besides that, on your quote there: no one except the Soviets had anything to do with Eastern Europe's divisions after the war; after all, Soviet armies were fucking parked everywhere that constitutes Eastern Europe. And if you look at the situation of every place the Western Allies occupied at the end of the war (with the exception of many British/French/Belgian African colonies), they're all pretty much better off now than they were relatively before or during the war, from Germany and Japan and all of Western Europe (which was completely devastated) to the Phillipines and South Korea.
see, you're simply taking the things that succeeded to somehow debase the things that went wrong. Our mistakes started a chain of events that we're still dealing with to this day because we're all sitting around patting ourselves on the back because we made a few right decisions. We also made some wrong ones, and those just don't instantly vanish.
I'm not discrediting the steps forward that were made, but we as a society cannot succeed without admitting and confronting our failures. In the celebrations of victory, we forget all too quick that every shot fired, every borderline redrawn, and every policy passed can and will have repercussions in the future.
EDIT in reply to your EDIT: To clarify, I'm not putting the blame for everything that has gone wrong completely on our shoulders. Our forceful decimation of Japan's military turned the country into an economic powerhouse (this past year notwithstanding), and as much as I can't stand Former President Reagan, he played a sizeable part in Germany eventually becoming a unified country again. I want nothing more than for Iraq and Afghanistan to turn shit around and become self-sustaining nations not fueld by war and hate, but I also want to see our men and women return, and I want us as country to be able to put energy into helping ourselves for a few years. History has shown time and time again that we don't perform well with so many different points of focus. My hope is that if we are able every once in a while to be honest and say. yea we kind of screwed the pooch on that one, we can move on to what we can do to fix it.
Edit: haha this was in reply to your first post. Sorry!
What concerns me is what I take to be a general lack of understanding. While most of us here know a thing or two about what we're talking about, I fell that our elected leaders don't, because they're not thinking jsut about Afghanistan, but also healthcare reform, taxes, balancing the budget, and what they can do to get re-elected, so I don't think the logistics of this mission really crossed their minds until after the fact. I don't know what the strategy should be in Afghanistan(this is why I don't hold a public office), because I can't think of a moment in U.S history where we were involved in a conflict like this that we were able to pull off the end game (Vietnam, Panama are the two examples that come to mind, even though we were'nt really supposed to know about Panama). WE have to get to a point where we are injecting the topic with some humanity, so we can figure how to band these people together, how to build up the leaders who aren't just as corrupt as the leaders before, and we definantly cannot try to push some of our already established beliefs onto them. The reason our democracy is able to sustain itself is because at the end of the day, no other country is telling what our rules should be.
Would that we had Britian's politican discourse, good lord.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
As long as we've blown exorbitant amounts of cash and lives in attempting to stabilize Iraq/Afghanistan (again: thanks, Republicans, for deciding to bite off more than we could comfortably chew because 9/11 made you mad), it frustrates me to hear that we're not going to give it more time.
We have an obligation, incurred by the past administration, to leave these nations better off than we found them. That is beginning to be true in Iraq, but we're years away from it in Afghanistan. If people don't like the cost, then maybe they'll wise up and not vote for people who sound glib and aggressive when it comes to applying military force.
This sounds like a very nice sentiment!
Okay, what metrics are we going to use to judge how much progress we're making in Afghanistan. When does it become a "better country?" How much of a better country do we want?
And, ultimately, is there a date after which we say "fuck this, it's been X years, we out." Or is this an indefinite commitment?
Really, these are the questions that need to be answered, or I can't see this ending nicely.
You may remember Joe Galloway from We Were Soldiers Once... and Young, and the movie it spun off.
I have to admit, those are pretty damn persuasive.
Joe Galloway's an amazing writer, he could convince me Angelina Jolie was unattractive.
If people ditched the metric of "losing" or "winning" a war.
It pisses me off that people say we "lost" Vietnam. We killed 3 million Vietnamese people—and we easily could have killed 10 times that many if we wanted to. We didn't; Vietnam was not a war of attrition, even though it was often fought like one. Just like Iraq, it was a war ostensibly fought over ideology, stupidly using military means.
I wonder how much antipathy towards pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan comes from idiots who worry about American pride being butthurt if we don't "win." We need to realize that you cannot "win" a war against an ideology; the concept makes no sense.
Well, the insurgents (they're not just the Taliban) do have effective control over large parts of the country. Outside the cities, it's pretty hard to keep control of the countryside with the amount of troops we have. Which is why the commanders on the ground want, and need more troops if they're going to be able to more effectively combat the insurgents.
The thing is, though, is all this blowing up civilians doesn't usually go over very nicely with them, and this has a bit of a counter-productive effect. Couple that with extremely corrupt government officials, and a complete lack of progress on the democracy side of things, it doesn't look like we're "winning." Whatever that is.
Update: the Taliban now controls most of the country directly or indirectly. They've installed "shadow governors" in various provinces. They operate freely across the border with Pakistan. “The Taliban is trying to create trouble elsewhere to alleviate pressure” in the south, said one senior American intelligence official. “They’ve outmaneuvered us time and time again.”
Meanwhile, Karzai "won" an election widely criticized as fraudulent, essentially ruining any legitimacy his government had and likely cementing his reputation as an American client-king.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, Obama, who as of one month ago called Afghanistan a "war of necessity," is now reconsidering his "strategy." His party and most Americans are opposed to the war. But General McChrystal says we need a huge troop increase soon or we risk losing the war entirely. There is a perception that Obama is dragging his feet here.
For me, the essential question centers on what the hell is the "Taliban"? Is it a political institution that can be defeated and forced to surrender? Or is it a vague ideology that various political groups loosely identify with?
In any case, it's certainly going to be difficult for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan without giving the impression that he is a defeatist who flatly contradicts his recent statements about "war of necessity."
And as far as their links to Al-Qaeda, they are very voluntary. No matter how much they knew about the planning of 9/11 beforehand, they went even further after to embrace Al-Qaeda.
On the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that this is just wounded pride motivating me to have this opinion. And the logic used to justify our continued war in Afghanistan is essentially the same as the logic used by Bush for Iraq. The Taliban do not have WMD's, but they might one day acquire them (by taking over Pakistan), therefore, we are right to attack them? The Taliban is a brutal, oppressive regime, therefore, it's justified to conquer them (despite massive civilian deaths) so that one day Afghanistan may be a better place?
Part of me wants to just dismiss this kind of logic entirely but another part is starting to feel more sympathy for Bush's foreign policy, apart from the lies and torture and whatnot.
It's ridiculous to say it's impossible, of course it's possible. We just have to judge the cost of accomplishing it.
We've certainly been bloodied so far, but I think time is on our side and not the Taliban's.
1) Keep doing what we're doing - not really achieving anything at the moment, I haven't seen any predictions from anyone who has insight into the issue that we will have any modicum of success on the current path we're treading.
2) Withdraw. Likely to be a significant political defeat for Obama due to his pre election plans for Afghanistan. Afghanistan likely to be won over by Taliban and have some sort of fundamentalist Islamic government in place within months/ couple of years, which would obviously make all the countries who jumped on board for the war look quite stupid.
3) Escalation. Really only going to work if it is coupled with a significant decrease in civilian casualties as well as a decrease in western soldiers deaths. And long term I really don't know what the plan is, kill all the Taliban and no one will join them anymore?
Politically its a long term issue. If there is a massive increase in troops and thats not followed immediately by some metric of success well the comparisons to vietnam are going to become very appropriate. As much as I would like to see it, I really can't see a western withdrawal, would probably be too politically damaging to Obama, maybe when they pull the same surge tactic as Iraq and it fails there will be enough will to leave. Also the Taliban has become the same as the Al Qaeda boogey man. It's just a group of people with similar ideology (militant Islamism) in an area being generalised. Theres plenty of independant warlords and militia groups around Afghanistan that have been falsely labelled as Taliban (through false information etc) and bombed to hell by the Americans. And as a result surprisingly they now fight against the western forces.
I pretty much feel the same way and my feelings are regularly exacerbated when I read things like this.