Something that could possibly help would be massive transfers of money and massive investments in Afghanistan. That would be because the expectations of the Afghan people seem to have been high at the beginning (maybe even unrealistically so), resulting in a significant level of dissapointment. Despite the fact that I suspect that the ability of the country to actually absorb investments and doing something useful with foreign aid is probably quite limited and despite the fact that already existing foreign aid seems to be massively misused, I think it wouldn’t hurt. There’s no Afghan economy to speak of, apart from opium production, which IMO isn’t an issue but rather something we should be glad exists given how screwed this country is.
Also, foreign governments (and even foreign private entities, towards which ressentment is growing too) should try to at least give the impression that Afghanistan hasn’t become a protectorate, and isn’t viewed merely as a hunting ground for terrorists. Which will be hard, since this isn’t a false perception by the Afghans, but the reality.
I also wonder to what extent it would help or hurt if Afghanistan was turned into a confederal country, instead of the current pretense of an unitary nation.
Actually 2000. You should keep updated before you post. Besides making a cheap shot at France because I was posting in this thread, what was your point?
Since this is an international task controlled by NATO, this issue has long since passed beyond the conservative/liberal of US politics.
I propose NATO lays out exactly how many troops they expect they need to complete the job. Then every nation is required to send a part of this based on the size of the nation’s population. If a country is unwilling, is is not living up to its NATO obligation and should be kicked out of NATO.
It’s not merely a military issue. “Add more troops” won’t solve the problem. Unless your plan is to completely take over the country, occupy it militarily, suppress any opposition whatever it could be, get rid of the Talibans and leave Afghanistan to its own devices once you think the mission is accomplished (and probably rince and repeat some years later when they come back in force). IOW, creating a new Irak. Such a thing is going to require a lot of troops, indeed. And will in all likehood be as successful as the Soviet occupation.
You won’t achieve anything unless the Afghan people, and Afghan authorities supported by the people share your goals and are supportive of your action.
Um…I disagree. Its IS a military problem primarily. We ARE occupying a hostile nation, having tossed out the ruling party from power by force of arms. We DO want to surpress the Taliban, who are hostile toward us, and who aren’t open to negotiation wrt our occuption…and who frankly we probably don’t WANT to negotiate with from a perspective of bringing them into the existing structure we are trying to build.
This has little or nothing to do with ‘creating a new Irak’, as the two situations aren’t remotely similar…with the exception that both efforts are, IMHO, undermanned.
It also isn’t vaguely like the Soviet occuption. Maybe you’d now like to shift to how similar it is to Vietnam…just so you hit all the bases? 
That would be nice. But recall that we ARE occupying their country in the formal sense. We DID toss the ruling party out of power by force of arms…and we don’t want that ruling party back in power, so its not a point that can be negotiated with the Taliban. The Afghan people DID in fact turn out to vote in the current government, and at least afaik they DO support (by and large) the goals of the NATO occupiers…yet the Taliban fights on. How do you propose to meet this threat? Whats YOUR plan, if its not a military problem and if you don’t think more troops would help?
-XT
Because conservatives in this country have been maintaining just that position, in deed if not in word.
How else are we supposed to view the fact that they’ve been steadily drawing down troops in Afghanistan to feed them to Iraq?
Let’s face it, Afghanistan is and will be an impoverished, backward country, for years to come. What on earth would induce private investors to put money into this place? It has no resources of any kind, and a backward social structure that includes keeping women uneducated. just about all the educated people have fled the country. Can we prevent Afghanistan from becoming a base for terroroists? Possibly, but it will take a lot of time and money. I’m not sure the US taxpayer is willing to see this thing through, because it will cost a lot of money. We probably would be better off spending the money on defending ourselves, against another 9/11-style attack.
Well, I’m not sure how else you could read your earlier post, but if I misread it what did you mean by (emphasis added):
If you mean “better than last year’”, I’m not exactly sure when we promised that or if it would make sense to do so. At some point they have to take responsibility for their own future(s).
I support infrastructure improvements, but I’m not sure exactly where the emphasis needs to be (if you mean the main emphasis) right now. It certainly needs to be a priority.
I suspect that the Liberals think the answer is some kind of modern day Marshal Plan. I believe that is wishful thinking. Unlike Europe and Japan, Afganistan was never truly a single modern unified nation. Investing billions of dollars in Afghanistan would be throwing good money after bad.
Afghanistan can go through the motions of democracy as long as it likes. That does not mean that it is a democracy in practice or principle. It is still very much a poor fractured country run by clans and warlords and I don’t really see how we can change that.
Why do you mean by nation? The Afghan people wasn’t particularily hostile.
[quote]
having tossed out the ruling party from power by force of arms. [ /quote]
Actually, you certainly remember that the actual fighting on the ground was done by local organizations hostile to the talibans. Afghans could have asserted that they had gotten rid of the Talibans all by themselves, with a mere support from foreign nations that they had not only welcomed, but also frequently requested in the past. It makes for a very different perception by the locals and a very different situation in the atermath.
Yes. And I suggest that this can only be achieved with the continued support of both the Afghan people and an Afghan government accepted, respected and supported by said people. And this support is collapsing.
Precisely, I completely disagree. The situation in Afghanistan was such that what the Bush administration stated would happen in Irak, could have happened in Afghanistan.
Now, if you treat Afghanistan as a purely military issue, the country as an occupied country, the people as pawns, and care only about the elimination of the Talibans, Afghanistan will turn into what Irak actually is.
Actually, the situation in the societ-occupied Afghanistan and the american occupied Irak are quite similar. And once again, if you treat Afghanistan as an occupied and hostile country you couldn’t care less about apart from the fact that it provides a convenient base to hunt down extremist muslims, you’ll end up with the equivalent of Afghanistan under Soviet rule or of the current Irak.
I contend that nothing can be achieved without a strong support by the Afghan people of both the action of the NATO and its own governement. Hence that obtaining it and keeping it should be the first and main goal. And it happens that this support is evaporating, the government discredited, the authorities ignored by locals rulers, the country unsafe, the people disgruntled by the behavior of foreigners, etc… Just sending more troops would be throwing out good money after the bad and won’t achieve anything except creating a long standing quagmire if a major effort isn’t made urgently to regain the favor of the Afghan people and address Afghan issues first (security,stability, acceptable living conditions, diminished tensions between ethnic, tribal etc… groups, self-reliance, confidence in the Afghan government, etc…) and western issues (the continued existence of Taliban fighters) second.
People aren’t idiots, and if you pursue only your interests in their country, the end result isn’t difficult to guess. If you treat them as enemies, their country as an occupied country, view yourself primarily as an occupying force in a hostile land, you’ll get what you wished for. The original benevolence westerners for once benefited from is being wasted away in the general indifference of the public and seemingly also of our governments.
It might be that more troops are required, but just sending more troops won’t solve the main issue, which is IMO that the country is turning hostile and with good reasons. If you just do that, you’ll fail. Isn’t it clear by now that modern armies, lacking a strong local support, are unable to unroot strong and determined guerillas?
Reformating the part of my post I messed up :
[quote]
having tossed out the ruling party from power by force of arms. [ /quote]
Actually, you certainly remember that the actual fighting on the ground was done by local organizations hostile to the talibans. Afghans could have asserted that they had gotten rid of the Talibans all by themselves, with a mere support from foreign nations that they had not only welcomed, but also frequently requested in the past. It makes for a very different perception by the locals and a very different situation in the atermath.
Yes. And I suggest that this can only be achieved with the continued support of both the Afghan people and an Afghan government accepted, respected and supported by said people. And this support is collapsing.
Trying again :
[quote]
having tossed out the ruling party from power by force of arms. [ /quote]
Actually, you certainly remember that the actual fighting on the ground was done by local organizations hostile to the talibans. Afghans could have asserted that they had gotten rid of the Talibans all by themselves, with a mere support from foreign nations that they had not only welcomed, but also frequently requested in the past. It makes for a very different perception by the locals and a very different situation in the atermath.
Yes. And I suggest that this can only be achieved with the continued support of both the Afghan people and an Afghan government accepted, respected and supported by said people. And this support is collapsing.
Huh???
OK, I give up. I let you make sense of the messed-up quotes.
You are kidding, right? Tell me you are kidding. The Afghan people are probably one of the MOST violent and hostile out there. These are the folks that gave Alexander the Great fits…and the British Empire…and even the Soviet Union. They are excellent light mountain troop…maybe the best that have ever been. They are clanish, tribal in their orientation, and hostile to ANY outside intruders.
Are you saying that NATO’s support for the Afghan government is collapsing? Or something else? I’m unsure. What indications do you have that NATO’s support for the elected Afghan government is collapsing? How do you tie that in with renewed effort on the part of the Taliban to reverse its fortunes through force of arms? Is it your opinion that the Taliban cause is one that the majority of Afghani’s follow? If this is the case, what should NATO do? Leave? The whole point was to toss them out of power and KEEP them out of power. I know WWII analogies aren’t good, but it would be sort of like, having taken Nazi Germany, the allies, finding that the Nazi’s have renewed the fighting (they never did of course) left…because the majority of Germans sympathized with the Nazi cause and the Nazi’s were making things tough on the new democratic government AND the allies. Even if Afghanistan turns completely against NATO and decides that the Taliban were right and want to bring them fully back into power, then NATO STILL shouldn’t just leave…it was their original mission to break the Taliban and prevent them from getting back into power for gods sake!
We ARE occupying the country. We (mostly NATO) HAS worked with the people to empower them…what the fuck more could they do? They gave them the chance to hold free elections, to bring in their own government and to run things themselves, man. The Taliban does not choose to play along and wishes to toss their marker in the ring through force of arms. This tends to make it a military issue…since they have an army and all and are in the process of attempting to force through their will by violent means.
The elimination of the Taliban WAS the original goal for NATO when it invaded Afghanistan.
BTW, I don’t see how this will make it another ‘Irak’…unless by that you simply mean that there will be a hot insurgency in Afghanistan. What other parallels do you see?
Actually, they aren’t remotely similar. The Soviet occupation in Afghanistan cost the Soviets tens of thousands of soldiers…and millions of Afghani’s died. The US poured in billions to support the Afgani’s. The Afgani resistance had whole sections of the country under their control (due mostly to terrain), places where the Soviets couldn’t go IN FORCE. In addition, the Afghani’s were able to completely isolate the various cities in Afghanistan, cutting off the movement of troops and supplies and making them islands in a hostile sea. Really, you don’t know what you are talking about if you think that what the US faces in Iraq, bad as it is, is remotely similar to what the Soviets faced in Afghanistan.
Great speech…but where is the beef? What exactly do you think NATO hasn’t done as far as getting the Afghani people on board? What SHOULD they do to ensure this? Why do you think the Afghani people have ‘good reasons’ for turning against NATO? As for the elected government having little or no power…whats the answer? We let THEM choose their government after all. Should we impose one on them? Should we let the Taliban back in power? Wave a magic wand to disconnect them from centuries of factionalism and decades of civil war?
I’ll ask again…what has NATO NOT done that you think they should have to make Afghanistan work and to prevent the Taliban from taking up arms again? 'Cause I really don’t see anything major, given the actual real world situation there, that they COULD have done differently. Except, well, the military option…i.e. sending in massive amounts of troops and using extreme violence to quell the Taliban once and for all (not that THIS would be likely to work either, mind you…its just something NATO/US DIDN’T do).
-XT
Right now, it is possible that defeating the Taliban should be the emphasis - I’m not sure. A few years ago things were quieter, and then the infrastructure should been the top priority. (And maybe it was - just not enough.)
Not meeting promises is not the same as total disaster. That promises to New Orleans are not met does not mean the city is uninhabitable. IOW, things can get worse.
And, may I point out that after the Russians left we did let them take responsibility for their own future. How did that work out? We didn’t even break Afghanistan, but it benefits us in the long run to fix it.
No, I’m not kidding. I don’t remember massive onslaughts of violence against american troops by the populace after the end of the Taliban’s regime.
No, I’m saying that the Afghan people’s support for both NATO and its own government is collapsing.
It’s my opinion that the support for of even simply acceptance of the Talibans is growing. Besides, there are plenty of causes they could embrace besides following the Taliban’s lead that would result in them shooting at westerners.
No. As I wrote in my previous posts, NATO countries should make a priority of adressing the needs of the population, for instance in term of security.
If Afghanistan turns completely against NATO then NATO will lose. Discussing whether or not troops should stay in this situation is a moot point, because they’ll lose this war.
I would first note that “we’re militarily occupying the country” and “we’re empowering the people” are contradictory statements.
Western countries should absolutely avoid perceiving themself as occupiers, behave like hostile occupiers or give locals reasons to perceive them as such, as much as possible. Even if it’s for a significat part a fiction, the appearances at least must be preserved at all costs.
People are not empowered. Afghan territory isn’t controlled outside main cities. Security is often nonexistant. People’s needs, be it in term of employment, education, health, etc… are unadressed while they expected a lot from western countries. Development projects are very low in the list of priorities of NATO countries, and when they are conducted, they’re unconsistent, and/or driven by polical and/or private interests. Corruption is on the increase and not only locals are involved. Western private security companies are allowed to behave like they were running the country. The government is unreliable and impotent, NATO unconcerned, hence the people has to turn to other sources to adress the issues they face. These sources are growing in influence and power, both NATO and the central government are on the losing side. Generally speaking, NATO countries seems (and actually are) only concerned with their crusade against the Talibans despite the support of the population being vital.
And this goal won’t ever be achieved without a widespread support within the Afghan populace. Ever.
I mean that NATO countries run the risk of losing all support and ending with reinforced Talibans, of an insurgency more generalized and involving other groups besides the Talibans, of facing an umpteenth civil war.
Nor NATO, nor the Afghan government control the country. If NATO forces aren’t currently in the same situation Soviet forces were, it’s merely due to the fact that the populace and the local warlords or tribal leaders aren’t pissed off enough yet. But they are more and more pissed off, and if nothing is done in quick order, a new quagmire is incoming.
This pretty much points up the problems that derailed things in Afghanistan. IRAQ – while an eventual probability – was completely uncalled for and a distraction from actual operations that were needed at the time.
I’ll go with this rant.