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.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
So I've been spending the last couple weeks listening to the White House Press briefings while browsing the web in various ways, and something is bugging the ever-loving fuck out of me.
Every single time, and sometimes it's the same fucking reporter, Gibbs is asked what the time table is for having a strategy for Afghanistan. And poor Gibbs has to say the same fucking thing over and over; "We want to do it right, there is no timetable, it depends on all the assessments and benchmarks" and so on. FUCK I hate the press.
You're annoyed at the press actually asking a difficult question?
Anyway. Yesterday it was reported that a young Afghan girl died after being hit by a box of leaflets dropped by the RAF. link That may well be the best metaphor ever for the stupidity of the conflict.
Qliphoth on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
It's a dumb question. The president's stance is that he wants to get it right and needs to get the right info to make that happen. What does the press do? They want to know when that will be. Okay fine, they ask once, MAYBE twice, it's okay, they get told there is no definitive timeline because that's not how the world works. What do they do in response? They ask over and over and over again. I could understand them asking if something significant happened like the president getting information from people he needs to hear it from. But it's like they're asking just to try and get some sort of date to hold the administration accountable for so that when the time comes they can get on the networks and go, "OH LOOK."
You're annoyed at the press actually asking a difficult question?
Anyway. Yesterday it was reported that a young Afghan girl died after being hit by a box of leaflets dropped by the RAF. link That may well be the best metaphor ever for the stupidity of the conflict.
In what way is that a difficult question? That's not a difficult question at all.
Khavall on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Not a major turning development, just more bullshit about the press.
So today Obama gave a short talk to the folks running the counter-terrorism efforts in our country, basically to give them thanks. At the White House press briefing following, Gibbs is asked why the president didn't mention Afghanistan by name, and then was asked if it wasn't said because there's a fear that the country might become a safe-haven for terrorists.
Where do they get this shit?
Edit - What the fuck, another reporter was like, "Are you sure it was an accident it didn't come up?" What exactly are they trying to reach for?
Not a major turning development, just more bullshit about the press.
So today Obama gave a short talk to the folks running the counter-terrorism efforts in our country, basically to give them thanks. At the White House press briefing following, Gibbs is asked why the president didn't mention Afghanistan by name, and then was asked if it wasn't said because there's a fear that the country might become a safe-haven for terrorists.
Where do they get this shit?
Edit - What the fuck, another reporter was like, "Are you sure it was an accident it didn't come up?" What exactly are they trying to reach for?
They're idiots. Duh.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Not a major turning development, just more bullshit about the press.
So today Obama gave a short talk to the folks running the counter-terrorism efforts in our country, basically to give them thanks. At the White House press briefing following, Gibbs is asked why the president didn't mention Afghanistan by name, and then was asked if it wasn't said because there's a fear that the country might become a safe-haven for terrorists.
Where do they get this shit?
Edit - What the fuck, another reporter was like, "Are you sure it was an accident it didn't come up?" What exactly are they trying to reach for?
They're idiots. Duh.
I'm tempted to start a thread on the press and how it handles politics as of late. They're just so fucking bad at it.
That one old lady who sits in the front row of every press briefing has this habit of asking Gibbs what the president thinks of people who have opinions going one way or the other. And the answer is the same shit. "Isn't it great that we live in America where people can freely have opinions?"
You're annoyed at the press actually asking a difficult question?
Anyway. Yesterday it was reported that a young Afghan girl died after being hit by a box of leaflets dropped by the RAF. link That may well be the best metaphor ever for the stupidity of the conflict.
She probably would have been blown up for trying to learn how to read one of them. It's ironic/sad on so many levels.
So, more troops to Afghanistan, what do you guys think? General McCrystal wants more, anywhere from 20k to 40k is what I'm hearing. What should Obama do, and what will he do?
America's military is already stretched, both financially and in terms of man power and other resources. The war is increasingly unpopular in the US and elsewhere, and its unclear if more boots on the ground will make a long term difference.
He could send no more, and concentrate on this whole "counter-terrorism" idea that I think Biden has been throwing around. IE get out of the nation building part, and focus on going after al-Qaida. He'd get raked over the coals for doing nothing while the situation in Afghanistan continued to get worse (which it will).
He could go for some sort of middle ground, which may just end up making nobody happy.
Also, let us remember that Iraq is not finished. As more US troops withdraw from Iraq we're going to see increasing instability there which will make the pullout all the more difficult.
I am leaning towards sending more troops. McChrystal has characterized his plan as first and foremost protecting civilians.
The alternative (not that it's strictly either/or) plan by Biden and co. call for more drone airstrikes, I'm guessing many in Pakistan. I don't see how this is a good long-term plan, since it's just going to breed more people who want to blow themselves up to kill the people dropping bombs on them.
McChrystal's plan sounds more like what I think is needed—basically, police action rather than attrition.
I wonder if more anti-war Dems could be brought around to support a troop build-up if it's made clear that the extra troops are instead of dropping bombs on lots of innocent civilians.
Qingu on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Do we really want to be in Afghanistan for another decade? Because that's what I keep hearing that it will take. Personally I don't think that kind of military commitment is possible or responsible.
Do we really want to be in Afghanistan for another decade? Because that's what I keep hearing that it will take. Personally I don't think that kind of military commitment is possible or responsible.
Any conflict in the middle east essentially means sifting through sand for 10-20 years. But in this case, it is absolutely responsible. Opium isn't grown in Afghanistan because farmers want to, but because they have no other choice and seek Taliban protection because they aren't going to get it anywhere else. Remember, Afghanistan is a failed state so there's no specialized economy or even any real labor distribution. There's consumers and farmers. Afghanis are rational actors and will seek crops with the greatest payoff, opium, so until we start providing alternatives or incetives to not grow opium the problem is going to be just as large. This is one of the problems that Biden was talking about, heroin addiction is growing at an exponential rate and not just in the Western world. Iran has seen heroin addiction cripple a large segment of this generation.
I call bullshit on McChrystal's characterization of increasing troop levels to protect civlian populations. It may drum up domestic support but I don't see a military commander placing civilians as a priority over security issues, which is exactly what increasing troop levels will do. American presence is needed to offer an alternative to Afghani's, like someone else posted Taliban approval levels are what 6%? Americans can engender domestic Afghani support, they just need somewhere there to do so.
Also the international stage is more or less anarchiac, so whoever posted that exposing election fraud, instead of covertly supporting candidates, to the world would somehow remedy the situation is just naive.
Is military commitment possible? I'm not sure, I haven't been made privy to DoD numbers and capabilities, but I would assume it is. It also seems like we've all forgotten that the Taliban gained control of the Swat Valley and were 70 miles from Islamabad. Pakistan destablization is a real and very serious threat, this may sound like fear mongering and maybe it is a little bit, but a Taliban with nuclear capabilities is one that I do not want to see in my lifetime.
I would have to disagree that pulling out troops from Iraq would result in further instability. The payoff for Iraqi insurgents to attack after a US pullout just isn't there. They need a reason to fight, opposing domestic support would just further deteroriate their cause. Killing Iraqi's and Iraqi civilians is a much different thing than killing Americans. If Americans can't kill civilians because of a loss of public support, amongst Iraqis not Americans, what makes it okay for Iraqis to kill Iraqis? Pulling out is the right thing to do in Iraq.
Do we really want to be in Afghanistan for another decade? Because that's what I keep hearing that it will take. Personally I don't think that kind of military commitment is possible or responsible.
I don't know if it's possible.
But policing that region doesn't strike me as irresponsible if we're actually there to promote stability and protect the civilians while they erect some semblance of a non-stone-age state. I would like to see other nations cooperate with us, obviously.
I don't see how a counter-terrorism plan could be effective, if long term it ends with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan. Isn't that how this whole mess got started?
And with Musharraf gone, it seems a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would (eventually) result in a Taliban destabilized Pakistan. Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me that would spell Al-Qaeda safe haven plus nukes. uh-oh.
The Surge seems to have turned the corner in Iraq. It seems logical to at least try the same in Afghanistan (blatantly ignoring differences between the countries). We broke the place; we owe it to Afghanistan's population to right it again (as much as we can), not just use it as a drone strip to bomb some caves.
We've already done the "special forces and air strikes only" combo, it was the strategy that we started with in Afghanistan. I don't know what Biden is smoking.
I'm interested to see what will happen when all our troops start driving these bad boys:
I would have to disagree that pulling out troops from Iraq would result in further instability. The payoff for Iraqi insurgents to attack after a US pullout just isn't there. They need a reason to fight, opposing domestic support would just further deteroriate their cause. Killing Iraqi's and Iraqi civilians is a much different thing than killing Americans. If Americans can't kill civilians because of a loss of public support, amongst Iraqis not Americans, what makes it okay for Iraqis to kill Iraqis? Pulling out is the right thing to do in Iraq.
I don't think Iraqis will attack US forces, or at least not in a large coordinated way like they did before. I think they'll attack each other, and perhaps more importantly in the long run end up with a government that may not be US friendly.
re: Mega IED resistant vehicle.
It will mean fewer casualties from bombs. It will also mean a single bomb against one of those things will cost the US a large amount dollars that went into producing the thing and shipping if to Afghanistan. Its also quite useless for the village fighting and the narrow mountain trails the rebels use. Its just an acknowledgment that NATO and US forces don't control most of the roads in Afghanistan in the first place.
And for those interested in Afghanistan, the warlords there play a very large role. Here is a short, wonderful site about the warlords there. http://www.warlordsofafghanistan.com/
You can buy a Warlords of Afghanistan coaster set!!
I don't see how a counter-terrorism plan could be effective, if long term it ends with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan. Isn't that how this whole mess got started?
And with Musharraf gone, it seems a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would (eventually) result in a Taliban controlled Pakistan. Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me that would spell Al-Qaeda safe haven plus nukes. uh-oh.
The Surge seems to have turned the corner in Iraq. It seems logical to at least try the same in Afghanistan (blatantly ignoring differences between the countries). We broke the place; we owe it to Afghanistan's population to right it again (as much as we can), not just use it as a drone strip to bomb some caves.
I wonder what Patraeus' opinion is?
I suspect it was more the ethnically segregated neighborhoods via ethnic cleansing that really calmed down Iraq, among other things. More troops isn't the answer, necessarily.
Also: do you realize how tiny Afghanistan is compared to Pakistan (28 million to 180)? Not to mention the Taliban currently controls most of Afghanistan but they don't really have any safe havens there, they remain crippled and what remains is in Pakistan. Where we seem to finally have the Pakistanis doing something.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
I don't see how a counter-terrorism plan could be effective, if long term it ends with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan. Isn't that how this whole mess got started?
And with Musharraf gone, it seems a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would (eventually) result in a Taliban controlled Pakistan. Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me that would spell Al-Qaeda safe haven plus nukes. uh-oh.
The Surge seems to have turned the corner in Iraq. It seems logical to at least try the same in Afghanistan (blatantly ignoring differences between the countries). We broke the place; we owe it to Afghanistan's population to right it again (as much as we can), not just use it as a drone strip to bomb some caves.
I wonder what Patraeus' opinion is?
I suspect it was more the ethnically segregated neighborhoods via ethnic cleansing that really calmed down Iraq, among other things. More troops isn't the answer, necessarily.
Also: do you realize how tiny Afghanistan is compared to Pakistan (28 million to 180)? Not to mention the Taliban currently controls most of Afghanistan but they don't really have any safe havens there, they remain crippled and what remains is in Pakistan. Where we seem to finally have the Pakistanis doing something.
The Taliban have no safe havens in Afghanistan? So what, they fight coalition forces on their day-trips from Pakistan? The south of Afghanistan has never been successfully conquered/occupied. The fighting is so intense now because now coalition forces are actually trying to move into the countryside in those areas, and are finding it pretty difficult going.
I don't see how a counter-terrorism plan could be effective, if long term it ends with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan. Isn't that how this whole mess got started?
And with Musharraf gone, it seems a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would (eventually) result in a Taliban controlled Pakistan. Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me that would spell Al-Qaeda safe haven plus nukes. uh-oh.
The Surge seems to have turned the corner in Iraq. It seems logical to at least try the same in Afghanistan (blatantly ignoring differences between the countries). We broke the place; we owe it to Afghanistan's population to right it again (as much as we can), not just use it as a drone strip to bomb some caves.
I wonder what Patraeus' opinion is?
I suspect it was more the ethnically segregated neighborhoods via ethnic cleansing that really calmed down Iraq, among other things. More troops isn't the answer, necessarily.
Also: do you realize how tiny Afghanistan is compared to Pakistan (28 million to 180)? Not to mention the Taliban currently controls most of Afghanistan but they don't really have any safe havens there, they remain crippled and what remains is in Pakistan. Where we seem to finally have the Pakistanis doing something.
There's also the fact that you could decrease crime by stationing a police officer at every corner, but you'll eventually run out of money and everything will revert to how it was before.
I don't see how a counter-terrorism plan could be effective, if long term it ends with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan. Isn't that how this whole mess got started?
And with Musharraf gone, it seems a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would (eventually) result in a Taliban controlled Pakistan. Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me that would spell Al-Qaeda safe haven plus nukes. uh-oh.
The Surge seems to have turned the corner in Iraq. It seems logical to at least try the same in Afghanistan (blatantly ignoring differences between the countries). We broke the place; we owe it to Afghanistan's population to right it again (as much as we can), not just use it as a drone strip to bomb some caves.
I wonder what Patraeus' opinion is?
I suspect it was more the ethnically segregated neighborhoods via ethnic cleansing that really calmed down Iraq, among other things. More troops isn't the answer, necessarily.
Also: do you realize how tiny Afghanistan is compared to Pakistan (28 million to 180)? Not to mention the Taliban currently controls most of Afghanistan but they don't really have any safe havens there, they remain crippled and what remains is in Pakistan. Where we seem to finally have the Pakistanis doing something.
The Taliban have no safe havens in Afghanistan? So what, they fight coalition forces on their day-trips from Pakistan? The south of Afghanistan has never been successfully conquered/occupied. The fighting is so intense now because now coalition forces are actually trying to move into the countryside in those areas, and are finding it pretty difficult going.
No, Al Qaeda doesn't. The Taliban controls ~80% of the country. They aren't the same organization. They are in fact, dubiously even allied at the moment. As the Taliban would like to rule Afghanistan again, and the last time they let Al Qaeda operate there they got deposed rather violently.
Note the bold in my post though I see how I made a shitty use of pronoun there. Sorry about that.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
It will mean fewer casualties from bombs. It will also mean a single bomb against one of those things will cost the US a large amount dollars that went into producing the thing and shipping if to Afghanistan. Its also quite useless for the village fighting and the narrow mountain trails the rebels use. Its just an acknowledgment that NATO and US forces don't control most of the roads in Afghanistan in the first place.
It'll cost less than losing a humvee and 4 service members, and hopefully the Taliban will be forced to rely less on IEDs as they'll be inflicting fewer casualties.
And those narrow roads are being patrolled by foot anyway.
No, Al Qaeda doesn't. The Taliban controls ~80% of the country. They aren't the same organization. They are in fact, dubiously even allied at the moment. As the Taliban would like to rule Afghanistan again, and the last time they let Al Qaeda operate there they got deposed rather violently.
Note the bold in my post though I see how I made a shitty use of pronoun there. Sorry about that.
Where the fuck does all this "Taliban won't help Al Qaeda" bullshit come from? Seriously?
Hasn't it been pointed out over and over that they only embraced Al Qaeda even more after 9/11? Where is even a hint of a rift being formed between the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
I don't see how a counter-terrorism plan could be effective, if long term it ends with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan. Isn't that how this whole mess got started?
And with Musharraf gone, it seems a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would (eventually) result in a Taliban controlled Pakistan. Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me that would spell Al-Qaeda safe haven plus nukes. uh-oh.
The Surge seems to have turned the corner in Iraq. It seems logical to at least try the same in Afghanistan (blatantly ignoring differences between the countries). We broke the place; we owe it to Afghanistan's population to right it again (as much as we can), not just use it as a drone strip to bomb some caves.
I wonder what Patraeus' opinion is?
I suspect it was more the ethnically segregated neighborhoods via ethnic cleansing that really calmed down Iraq, among other things. More troops isn't the answer, necessarily.
Also: do you realize how tiny Afghanistan is compared to Pakistan (28 million to 180)? Not to mention the Taliban currently controls most of Afghanistan but they don't really have any safe havens there, they remain crippled and what remains is in Pakistan. Where we seem to finally have the Pakistanis doing something.
There's also the fact that you could decrease crime by stationing a police officer at every corner, but you'll eventually run out of money and everything will revert to how it was before.
Which in a nutshell is the problem in Afghanistan, but on a larger scale. There is much talk of Afghanis taking over, but little means for them to do so. Their legal system is almost non-existent, and super corrupt where it does exist. Their army is filled with infiltrators and is similiarly corrupt. Same with all levels of government. Western nations can use money for rebuilding efforts, but the amount required is enormous. Building up such a system is difficult (to say the least) when insurgents are doing their best to stop you and a lot of the people you're dealing with are corrupt.
But worse is that when you get such a system in place, something that more or less resembles a well functional nation, you realize that all of this was paid for by other nations, and that Afghanistan can't actually afford this system on its own. Yet having a functioning national government for a long period of time is the only possible way to control a country like that.
First, what a lot of pundits don't get is that the reason Afganistan was never conquered is it's not worth the price of establishing a garrison there. It's worthless. What can you do, take goats from subsistance farmers as taxes?
Any of you guys ever play video games?
Is there a point to occupying a city/planet with no strategic importance in, say the Total War/Sins of a Solar Empire games where the troops required to hold it exceed the tax revenues gained from it and will continue to operate at a loss for the far conceivable future?
Hell no.
My point isn't that it's not worth becomming a province on some american empire. My point is that it's not a "normal" country and shouldn't be treated as such.
Trying to turn it into Switzerland is a waste of time because it doesn't have the tax base to support the institutions for a parliamentary democracy; standing armies, courts, police, ministries, ect. without massive outside subsidies. I don't think it could be a self-sufficient parliamentary democracy even if it's mineral resources were fully tapped.
Second. That being said, when people complain that the national government only controlls the capital and the tribes most of the country, they're basically stating what Afganistan is and has always been; a forced confederation of tribes with a "capital" to deal with the foreigners.
It's the reality of that part of the world.
So instead of trying to force it into something it's not, leave it for what it is. Let the tribes have their guns and freedom instead of trying to force them into a style of government they don't want and just kill bad guys over there instead of nation building.
They don't like the Taliban so just shoot the taliban, which our military is good at, and stop putting all this effort into creating institutions they don't really want or understand and can't be self-sustaining.
Even this late in the game, I'm all for "pulling out"(see George Carlin: Americans love war skit) completely, but then that still leaves the matter of the 14 or so military bases the military has constructed in Iraq and whatever they have made in Afghanistan, maintaining American presence in the region.
Lilnoobs on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Even this late in the game, I'm all for "pulling out"(see George Carlin: Americans love war skit) completely, but then that still leaves the matter of the 14 or so military bases the military has constructed in Iraq and whatever they have made in Afghanistan, maintaining American presence in the region.
From what I understand, most of what we have in Afghanistan are plywood encampments on top of some hills/mountains. We marginally control the areas surrounding these encampments and not much more.
I don't buy the argument that "The Taliban doesn't even like al-Qaeda anymore!"
I do think there is some merit in the idea that these people do not pose us a credible threat. 9/11 wasn't planned from Afghanistan, and most of the hijackers were in Saudi Arabia.
They may pose a threat to nuclear-armed Pakistan. But as I understand it, Pakistan's military is pretty strong. And whether or not the Taliban manage to infiltrate Pakistan's military seems independent of what we decide to do with Afghanistan.
This (rather, the links therein) is what I'm basing my statements on.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
So you assume it's because the Taliban won't let them operate there?
Let's go with the occam's razor common sense assumption of Al Qaeda probably doesn't think operating from an area of active conflict is a good idea, especially in any location that's a driving distance from the American military. Hence the term "safe haven".
All this bomb making expertise the Taliban is making use of, you think it's sheep farmers providing that? If the Taliban didn't plan on supporting Al Qaeda, they would be shouting it from the mountain tops in order to undermine the NATO effort there.
My point of contention is the idea that if we just leave Al Qaeda won't be able to operate from Afghanistan just by wanting to. That is some magical thinking.
What's the goal, what are we accomplishing, can we achieve said goal by adding more troops? If the goal was to rout Al Qaeda, we did that. They're now mostly in Pakistan. I suppose you can make the argument that if Pakistan really goes after them, then we should stay in Afghanistan so they can't leak back across the border. But our estimates are that Al Qaeda has 100 fighters or so left.
Soooooo is this still a war of necessity?
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
We leave. The Taliban retakes Afghanistan. Which now becomes a staging ground for the Taliban insurrection in Pakistan and for Al Qaeda attacks against the West.
We leave. The Taliban retakes Afghanistan. Which now becomes a staging ground for the Taliban insurrection in Pakistan and for Al Qaeda attacks against the West.
Now what? Do we invade again?
The biggest thing we need to do is politically stabilize Pakistan so nothing like that happens, though again, Pakistan is HUGE compared to Afghanistan. It'd be like staging an insurrection into the US from Canada.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
We leave. The Taliban retakes Afghanistan. Which now becomes a staging ground for the Taliban insurrection in Pakistan and for Al Qaeda attacks against the West.
Now what? Do we invade again?
The biggest thing we need to do is politically stabilize Pakistan so nothing like that happens, though again, Pakistan is HUGE compared to Afghanistan. It'd be like staging an insurrection into the US from Canada.
A politically stable Pakistan would be difficult to accomplish. The only truly enduring state apparatus in Pakistan has been their military, which is why they have been known as 'The Steel Skeleton.' Everything else in Pakistan has been very transitory, except for possibly the ISI. The ISI could probably be seen as part of the military apparatus of Pakistan anyway.
And the idea of the Taliban defeating the Pakistani military on their home turf approaches the ridiculous, unless the Pakistani military joined with the Taliban for some retarded reason. The chances of that happening is very slim.
We leave. The Taliban retakes Afghanistan. Which now becomes a staging ground for the Taliban insurrection in Pakistan and for Al Qaeda attacks against the West.
Now what? Do we invade again?
The biggest thing we need to do is politically stabilize Pakistan so nothing like that happens, though again, Pakistan is HUGE compared to Afghanistan. It'd be like staging an insurrection into the US from Canada.
A politically stable Pakistan would be difficult to accomplish. The only truly enduring state apparatus in Pakistan has been their military, which is why they have been known as 'The Steel Skeleton.' Everything else in Pakistan has been very transitory, except for possibly the ISI. The ISI could probably be seen as part of the military apparatus of Pakistan anyway.
And the idea of the Taliban defeating the Pakistani military on their home turf approaches the ridiculous, unless the Pakistani military joined with the Taliban for some retarded reason. The chances of that happening is very slim.
Oh, I agree, enc0re's worry is insane. Thus the insurrection from Canada to US comparison.
But terrorism wise, a politically stable Pakistan is the best thing we can do. It's hard, and not a military based foreign policy initiative, so we're not likely to try, but still.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
The Pakistani military is large but it's not really what one would term "battle-ready" from the commentary I've heard - it's a political power in it's own right there, which means that while there's a lot of it, it's not actually very well trained for dealing with an actual aggressor (outside posturing with India).
A bunch of Taliban militia is?
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
We leave. The Taliban retakes Afghanistan. Which now becomes a staging ground for the Taliban insurrection in Pakistan and for Al Qaeda attacks against the West.
Now what? Do we invade again?
The biggest thing we need to do is politically stabilize Pakistan so nothing like that happens, though again, Pakistan is HUGE compared to Afghanistan. It'd be like staging an insurrection into the US from Canada.
Any US attempts to help Pakistan are immediately self defeating. Look at the uproar in Pakistan over the military aid that the US wants to give them. The more linked the US becomes with the Pakistani government the more the governments popularity is reduced and as such destablises the country, especially with such a tenuous coalition in power.
Also I don't know if the Pakistani's actually mind a fundamentalist Islamic government in power in Afghanistan. I think they'd rather that than have the perceived threat of Indian influence in the region being allowed to grow. Pakistan's motivations in the area are not simple or unified.
The Pakistani military is large but it's not really what one would term "battle-ready" from the commentary I've heard - it's a political power in it's own right there, which means that while there's a lot of it, it's not actually very well trained for dealing with an actual aggressor (outside posturing with India).
A bunch of Taliban militia is?
The Taliban are fighting a successful insurrection against the most technologically equipped nation military on Earth. The fact they keep doing it is insane, because fighting against the US military must fucking suck. At the very least, they've got experience on their side - be wary discounting their soldiers just because they train with less money then ours.
Offensive wars are totally different. Especially offensive wars in that terrain.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
The Pakistani military is large but it's not really what one would term "battle-ready" from the commentary I've heard - it's a political power in it's own right there, which means that while there's a lot of it, it's not actually very well trained for dealing with an actual aggressor (outside posturing with India).
A bunch of Taliban militia is?
The Taliban are fighting a successful insurrection against the most technologically equipped nation military on Earth. The fact they keep doing it is insane, because fighting against the US military must fucking suck. At the very least, they've got experience on their side - be wary discounting their soldiers just because they train with less money then ours.
Maintaining a partisan resistance is vastly different than taking control of a neighboring nation.
Oh, I agree, enc0re's worry is insane. Thus the insurrection from Canada to US comparison.
But terrorism wise, a politically stable Pakistan is the best thing we can do. It's hard, and not a military based foreign policy initiative, so we're not likely to try, but still.
OK, just to be clear here: I'm not saying Afghanistan would invade/take over Pakistan. I'm saying the current Taliban resistance in Pakistan (you've heard I presume) would now have an out of the country staging ground/safe haven. This would obviously be no good for Pakistani stability, which already is not so hot.
In other words, I'm claiming that a Taliban controlled Afghanistan may result in Pakistan failing as a state. Do you really think that's insane?
Posts
Every single time, and sometimes it's the same fucking reporter, Gibbs is asked what the time table is for having a strategy for Afghanistan. And poor Gibbs has to say the same fucking thing over and over; "We want to do it right, there is no timetable, it depends on all the assessments and benchmarks" and so on. FUCK I hate the press.
Anyway. Yesterday it was reported that a young Afghan girl died after being hit by a box of leaflets dropped by the RAF. link That may well be the best metaphor ever for the stupidity of the conflict.
In what way is that a difficult question? That's not a difficult question at all.
So today Obama gave a short talk to the folks running the counter-terrorism efforts in our country, basically to give them thanks. At the White House press briefing following, Gibbs is asked why the president didn't mention Afghanistan by name, and then was asked if it wasn't said because there's a fear that the country might become a safe-haven for terrorists.
Where do they get this shit?
Edit - What the fuck, another reporter was like, "Are you sure it was an accident it didn't come up?" What exactly are they trying to reach for?
They're idiots. Duh.
I'm tempted to start a thread on the press and how it handles politics as of late. They're just so fucking bad at it.
That one old lady who sits in the front row of every press briefing has this habit of asking Gibbs what the president thinks of people who have opinions going one way or the other. And the answer is the same shit. "Isn't it great that we live in America where people can freely have opinions?"
She probably would have been blown up for trying to learn how to read one of them. It's ironic/sad on so many levels.
America's military is already stretched, both financially and in terms of man power and other resources. The war is increasingly unpopular in the US and elsewhere, and its unclear if more boots on the ground will make a long term difference.
He could send no more, and concentrate on this whole "counter-terrorism" idea that I think Biden has been throwing around. IE get out of the nation building part, and focus on going after al-Qaida. He'd get raked over the coals for doing nothing while the situation in Afghanistan continued to get worse (which it will).
He could go for some sort of middle ground, which may just end up making nobody happy.
Also, let us remember that Iraq is not finished. As more US troops withdraw from Iraq we're going to see increasing instability there which will make the pullout all the more difficult.
The alternative (not that it's strictly either/or) plan by Biden and co. call for more drone airstrikes, I'm guessing many in Pakistan. I don't see how this is a good long-term plan, since it's just going to breed more people who want to blow themselves up to kill the people dropping bombs on them.
McChrystal's plan sounds more like what I think is needed—basically, police action rather than attrition.
I wonder if more anti-war Dems could be brought around to support a troop build-up if it's made clear that the extra troops are instead of dropping bombs on lots of innocent civilians.
Any conflict in the middle east essentially means sifting through sand for 10-20 years. But in this case, it is absolutely responsible. Opium isn't grown in Afghanistan because farmers want to, but because they have no other choice and seek Taliban protection because they aren't going to get it anywhere else. Remember, Afghanistan is a failed state so there's no specialized economy or even any real labor distribution. There's consumers and farmers. Afghanis are rational actors and will seek crops with the greatest payoff, opium, so until we start providing alternatives or incetives to not grow opium the problem is going to be just as large. This is one of the problems that Biden was talking about, heroin addiction is growing at an exponential rate and not just in the Western world. Iran has seen heroin addiction cripple a large segment of this generation.
I call bullshit on McChrystal's characterization of increasing troop levels to protect civlian populations. It may drum up domestic support but I don't see a military commander placing civilians as a priority over security issues, which is exactly what increasing troop levels will do. American presence is needed to offer an alternative to Afghani's, like someone else posted Taliban approval levels are what 6%? Americans can engender domestic Afghani support, they just need somewhere there to do so.
Also the international stage is more or less anarchiac, so whoever posted that exposing election fraud, instead of covertly supporting candidates, to the world would somehow remedy the situation is just naive.
Is military commitment possible? I'm not sure, I haven't been made privy to DoD numbers and capabilities, but I would assume it is. It also seems like we've all forgotten that the Taliban gained control of the Swat Valley and were 70 miles from Islamabad. Pakistan destablization is a real and very serious threat, this may sound like fear mongering and maybe it is a little bit, but a Taliban with nuclear capabilities is one that I do not want to see in my lifetime.
I would have to disagree that pulling out troops from Iraq would result in further instability. The payoff for Iraqi insurgents to attack after a US pullout just isn't there. They need a reason to fight, opposing domestic support would just further deteroriate their cause. Killing Iraqi's and Iraqi civilians is a much different thing than killing Americans. If Americans can't kill civilians because of a loss of public support, amongst Iraqis not Americans, what makes it okay for Iraqis to kill Iraqis? Pulling out is the right thing to do in Iraq.
But policing that region doesn't strike me as irresponsible if we're actually there to promote stability and protect the civilians while they erect some semblance of a non-stone-age state. I would like to see other nations cooperate with us, obviously.
And with Musharraf gone, it seems a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would (eventually) result in a Taliban destabilized Pakistan. Maybe I'm paranoid, but to me that would spell Al-Qaeda safe haven plus nukes. uh-oh.
The Surge seems to have turned the corner in Iraq. It seems logical to at least try the same in Afghanistan (blatantly ignoring differences between the countries). We broke the place; we owe it to Afghanistan's population to right it again (as much as we can), not just use it as a drone strip to bomb some caves.
I wonder what Patraeus' opinion is?
I'm interested to see what will happen when all our troops start driving these bad boys:
I don't think Iraqis will attack US forces, or at least not in a large coordinated way like they did before. I think they'll attack each other, and perhaps more importantly in the long run end up with a government that may not be US friendly.
re: Mega IED resistant vehicle.
It will mean fewer casualties from bombs. It will also mean a single bomb against one of those things will cost the US a large amount dollars that went into producing the thing and shipping if to Afghanistan. Its also quite useless for the village fighting and the narrow mountain trails the rebels use. Its just an acknowledgment that NATO and US forces don't control most of the roads in Afghanistan in the first place.
And for those interested in Afghanistan, the warlords there play a very large role. Here is a short, wonderful site about the warlords there.
http://www.warlordsofafghanistan.com/
You can buy a Warlords of Afghanistan coaster set!!
I suspect it was more the ethnically segregated neighborhoods via ethnic cleansing that really calmed down Iraq, among other things. More troops isn't the answer, necessarily.
Also: do you realize how tiny Afghanistan is compared to Pakistan (28 million to 180)? Not to mention the Taliban currently controls most of Afghanistan but they don't really have any safe havens there, they remain crippled and what remains is in Pakistan. Where we seem to finally have the Pakistanis doing something.
The Taliban have no safe havens in Afghanistan? So what, they fight coalition forces on their day-trips from Pakistan? The south of Afghanistan has never been successfully conquered/occupied. The fighting is so intense now because now coalition forces are actually trying to move into the countryside in those areas, and are finding it pretty difficult going.
There's also the fact that you could decrease crime by stationing a police officer at every corner, but you'll eventually run out of money and everything will revert to how it was before.
No, Al Qaeda doesn't. The Taliban controls ~80% of the country. They aren't the same organization. They are in fact, dubiously even allied at the moment. As the Taliban would like to rule Afghanistan again, and the last time they let Al Qaeda operate there they got deposed rather violently.
Note the bold in my post though I see how I made a shitty use of pronoun there. Sorry about that.
And those narrow roads are being patrolled by foot anyway.
Where the fuck does all this "Taliban won't help Al Qaeda" bullshit come from? Seriously?
Hasn't it been pointed out over and over that they only embraced Al Qaeda even more after 9/11? Where is even a hint of a rift being formed between the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
Which in a nutshell is the problem in Afghanistan, but on a larger scale. There is much talk of Afghanis taking over, but little means for them to do so. Their legal system is almost non-existent, and super corrupt where it does exist. Their army is filled with infiltrators and is similiarly corrupt. Same with all levels of government. Western nations can use money for rebuilding efforts, but the amount required is enormous. Building up such a system is difficult (to say the least) when insurgents are doing their best to stop you and a lot of the people you're dealing with are corrupt.
But worse is that when you get such a system in place, something that more or less resembles a well functional nation, you realize that all of this was paid for by other nations, and that Afghanistan can't actually afford this system on its own. Yet having a functioning national government for a long period of time is the only possible way to control a country like that.
Waging welfare.
What should we do?
Leave it for what it is.
First, what a lot of pundits don't get is that the reason Afganistan was never conquered is it's not worth the price of establishing a garrison there. It's worthless. What can you do, take goats from subsistance farmers as taxes?
Any of you guys ever play video games?
Is there a point to occupying a city/planet with no strategic importance in, say the Total War/Sins of a Solar Empire games where the troops required to hold it exceed the tax revenues gained from it and will continue to operate at a loss for the far conceivable future?
Hell no.
My point isn't that it's not worth becomming a province on some american empire. My point is that it's not a "normal" country and shouldn't be treated as such.
Trying to turn it into Switzerland is a waste of time because it doesn't have the tax base to support the institutions for a parliamentary democracy; standing armies, courts, police, ministries, ect. without massive outside subsidies. I don't think it could be a self-sufficient parliamentary democracy even if it's mineral resources were fully tapped.
Second. That being said, when people complain that the national government only controlls the capital and the tribes most of the country, they're basically stating what Afganistan is and has always been; a forced confederation of tribes with a "capital" to deal with the foreigners.
It's the reality of that part of the world.
So instead of trying to force it into something it's not, leave it for what it is. Let the tribes have their guns and freedom instead of trying to force them into a style of government they don't want and just kill bad guys over there instead of nation building.
They don't like the Taliban so just shoot the taliban, which our military is good at, and stop putting all this effort into creating institutions they don't really want or understand and can't be self-sustaining.
Margaret Thatcher
From what I understand, most of what we have in Afghanistan are plywood encampments on top of some hills/mountains. We marginally control the areas surrounding these encampments and not much more.
I do think there is some merit in the idea that these people do not pose us a credible threat. 9/11 wasn't planned from Afghanistan, and most of the hijackers were in Saudi Arabia.
They may pose a threat to nuclear-armed Pakistan. But as I understand it, Pakistan's military is pretty strong. And whether or not the Taliban manage to infiltrate Pakistan's military seems independent of what we decide to do with Afghanistan.
Let's go with the occam's razor common sense assumption of Al Qaeda probably doesn't think operating from an area of active conflict is a good idea, especially in any location that's a driving distance from the American military. Hence the term "safe haven".
All this bomb making expertise the Taliban is making use of, you think it's sheep farmers providing that? If the Taliban didn't plan on supporting Al Qaeda, they would be shouting it from the mountain tops in order to undermine the NATO effort there.
My point of contention is the idea that if we just leave Al Qaeda won't be able to operate from Afghanistan just by wanting to. That is some magical thinking.
Soooooo is this still a war of necessity?
We leave. The Taliban retakes Afghanistan. Which now becomes a staging ground for the Taliban insurrection in Pakistan and for Al Qaeda attacks against the West.
Now what? Do we invade again?
The biggest thing we need to do is politically stabilize Pakistan so nothing like that happens, though again, Pakistan is HUGE compared to Afghanistan. It'd be like staging an insurrection into the US from Canada.
A politically stable Pakistan would be difficult to accomplish. The only truly enduring state apparatus in Pakistan has been their military, which is why they have been known as 'The Steel Skeleton.' Everything else in Pakistan has been very transitory, except for possibly the ISI. The ISI could probably be seen as part of the military apparatus of Pakistan anyway.
And the idea of the Taliban defeating the Pakistani military on their home turf approaches the ridiculous, unless the Pakistani military joined with the Taliban for some retarded reason. The chances of that happening is very slim.
Oh, I agree, enc0re's worry is insane. Thus the insurrection from Canada to US comparison.
But terrorism wise, a politically stable Pakistan is the best thing we can do. It's hard, and not a military based foreign policy initiative, so we're not likely to try, but still.
A bunch of Taliban militia is?
Any US attempts to help Pakistan are immediately self defeating. Look at the uproar in Pakistan over the military aid that the US wants to give them. The more linked the US becomes with the Pakistani government the more the governments popularity is reduced and as such destablises the country, especially with such a tenuous coalition in power.
Also I don't know if the Pakistani's actually mind a fundamentalist Islamic government in power in Afghanistan. I think they'd rather that than have the perceived threat of Indian influence in the region being allowed to grow. Pakistan's motivations in the area are not simple or unified.
Offensive wars are totally different. Especially offensive wars in that terrain.
Maintaining a partisan resistance is vastly different than taking control of a neighboring nation.
OK, just to be clear here: I'm not saying Afghanistan would invade/take over Pakistan. I'm saying the current Taliban resistance in Pakistan (you've heard I presume) would now have an out of the country staging ground/safe haven. This would obviously be no good for Pakistani stability, which already is not so hot.
In other words, I'm claiming that a Taliban controlled Afghanistan may result in Pakistan failing as a state. Do you really think that's insane?