Yes, when I think of historical examples of nation-building going swimmingly the first one I think of is the current effort in Afghanistan. The current plan in Afghanistan is to work with the democratically-elected government to build up the institutions of governance so that, if all goes well, in another decade or two the level of governance will be up to the level of Pakistan, which you’ll remember is the country where Osama bin Laden is currently living. Do you think it’s going to be worth trillions of dollars, tens of thousands dead and seriously wounded to in the best-case scenario build a state comparable to the one where the world’s most-wanted man currently resides along with a virulently anti-American population?
Yes, because we will win over those anti-American people. We will make them modern, we will break the back of strongmen and tradition.
Consider the model of Korea again. We did it imperfectly (we do everything imperfectly) but who could have guessed a backwards stinkhole like Korea could have become what it is now? Every argument made now that Afghanistan is not worth it could have been made for Korea.
No country, no culture can withstand the lure of happiness and riches that the Western world provides. Theirs is a broken culture that can, should, and will be displaced.
I think it is well worth it.
Do you want to turn these people over to numberless generations of slavery to backwardness? Why? If we let them return to beating their women and killing Gays, will you ignore that until they attack your home again?
Let’s do this thing, let’s do it right.
The US had a plan to invade Iraq, set up a bunch of appointees who’d been on the CIA/Foggy Bottom payroll for decades who would then write a constitution turning Iraq into a free-market paradise with everything, especially the oil, privatised. There’d then be some sort of election with the occupation muscle and money backing the appointees and they’d run the country for us. Even if things hadn’t gone to plan and they hadn’t won the election (it still isn’t clear if the election would have been open or not, maybe it would just be appointee-type pro-American parties allowed to run) whoever won the election would be stuck in the Green Zone dependent on the US military to stay alive and of course in charge of handing out the oil rights to private companies. Basically another stich-up like the original stich-up of Iraq’s oil with somebody like Ahmad Chalabi playing the Gulbenkian part.
But this was all thwarted by an Iranian Ayatollah who issued a fatwa demanding that the appointees stop writing the constitution and hold immediate free elections, the winners of whom would write the constitution and form the government. After spending months trying to continue with the original plan and avoid the fatwa when it became clear that there was no other option Bush bent to the Ayatollah’s will and agreed to open elections. The Ayatollah put together a group of religious parties that we had previously been calling Iranian-backed terrorist groups and they won the election and wrote the constitution the way they wanted it in conjuction with the Kurds, who agreed to everything the Islamic parties wanted as long as they got effective independence.
We’re going to modernise Afghanistan and break the back of people we’re currently relying on to run the country and even truck our supplies in? Vietnam managed to resist our wonderful gifts and bounties bestowed on them, Afghanistan is doing exactly the same. What do you mean “return to” killing gays and beating women? You think Afghanistan became Switzerland when we invaded? Do you seriously belive all this shit?
I’m not suggesting that the US is trying to steal the oil. I’m saying that the US is being used, by the oligarchy that really runs this country, to control the resources of that area, and to set up puppet governments in Afghanistan and Iraq to achive that goal. There is a difference. They believe it is in their best intrests to follow this policy, as outlined in the PNAC paper I linked to. Some may try to dismiss that paper, but having read it, I believe it is pretty much a blueprint for what is going on today.
This was all sold to the people as them hating us for our freedom, and wanting to destroy us for it.
That line is all bs. The 1900 were just cannon fodder in a war of conquest. What the average American does not understand is that to the oligarchy we are all just as expendable as the 1900. Or as the over 1 million civilians that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I say it’s not worth it.
And keeping our troops over there to get roadside-bombed is going to help make that happen, um, how? If it’s as inevitable as you think, then it should already be well underway, right? The Taliban should never have been able to gain a foothold, and the tribal warlords should already be gone. Except that we’re, erm, keeping them in power. Oops. And heroin availability in the US has increased dramatically.
You want us to “do this thing right”. Fine. Nobody disagrees so far. But what does that constitute? What do you have to propose besides exhortations?
Winning. Destroying their culture and making them rich, happy and modern.
So you’re pretty much just using a Conspiracy Theory, then.
The only two possible options are WMD’s or oil theft, and if they secured the oil building then by gum it must be oil theft (even though we didn’t steal any oil). And, why, we must have always intended to steal their oil and never did so when we were actually able to because, well, hey look over there! It’s clear that the Genius Fools planned on looting Iraq in front of the entire world but even when they were in control they didn’t, which makes absolutely no sense, but since they’re Genius Fools we can say that they had a conspiracy to loot Iraq that just never materialized and we don’t even need to guess about why that happened, because it was “plain to see”… but of course never proven. All good Conspiracies hide their evidence, after all.
Except you claimed to have evidence, and said that there was a letter that proved your point. Except the letter didn’t prove your point. So you modified your point a bit and claimed that the letter proved that, too. Except it didn’t prove that either. So if it can’t be fit into the Theory let’s just discard it and say that they weren’t really being honest in their appeal to Clinton, that way we don’t need to deal with the evidence when it turns out to be contradictory. But if they had said that they wanted to secure Iraq to use its resources, why, then it would’ve been a Slam Dunk.
They’re going to take violent exception to the “destroying their culture” bit. The Taliban are southern religious conservatives. They believe that their religion and holy book should be the base on which the country is governed. They strongly believe in family values and the right to bear arms. They hate immoral influences in their lives like the stuff that comes out of Hollywood. They drive around in pickup trucks. The more you try and change their culture the more they’re going to cling to their guns and their religion. I’d go as far as to say that rying to change them into a more liberal society is an absolute non-starter.
Why? You figure that they have a genetic block against wanting to be rich and happy? Perhaps there is something special about Afghan society that makes it more obdurate than Korean society?
It will take time, it will take blood, it will take money, but there is no obvious reason why it will not work. At some point the process will be taken over by a segment of the Afghans themselves who will pull the others along.
They can take all the violent exception they want. They already took their best shot. Violence will just let kill the troublemakers all the faster.
Not that the war is about this, but who has the right to froce them to change their culture. You have got to be joking.
They’re doing a pretty good job of killing the troublemakers. In another few years they’ll finally get the troublemakers to bugger off back where they came from. The last few out may even make the trip in a helicopter again.
Any of it your own? :dubious:
Yes, we gave up in Vietnam too. Those people were sent to ‘reeducation camps,’ the ones in Cambodia were butchered like cattle. So you think doing that the women of Afghanistan is a good idea?
Do you value the lives of Westerners more than the lives of Afghani women? Why?
(Please excuse me, it is moving toward bedtime in this half of the world. I do value your comments and hope to read them in the morning.)
While I would agree that Korea worked out well for us, I would say that there are some differences between Afghanistan and Korea that make the westernization of Afghanistan a much less organic and inevitable process. Unless we are ready to surrender a part of Afghanistan to the Taliban so taht we can modernize the rest of it, I don’t think we reach detente with the Taliban the way we did with North korea.
We may have more moral authority and what we are doing is probably better for Afghanistan than leaving them to the Taliban but is it worth it? What end result can we reach with our current policy?
Yes, I have fought, I would again if they could find the extra-large body armor I now require. Yes, it would be my money, yes it would be my time.
Have you stood up for your beliefs? How?
We had more than ample opportunity to steal the oil if we wanted to. We had pretty compelte control of the oil fields, the insurgents simply couldn’t operate out in teh middle of teh desert where the oil fields were, theya re just too easy to spot amongs teh dunes of sand.
We were certainly concerned about preserving the oil assets but we weren’t there to steal it.
No, really. I do not understand and I am looking to my fellow Dopers to help me out.
For the third time, what horrible, terrible, no good, very bad consequences will occur if the U.S. just packed up and went home? Can someone please lay this out in detail for me?
Because, despite this rather bizarre debate about whether occupation of Afghanistan is worth it or not, shouldn’t we know what the end goal is? What are we trying to prevent by being there?
If our purpose is to build their nation and replace their culture with our own pre-packaged, hermetically sealed, plastic, consumer culture-like product and we suddenly decided that isn’t “worth it,” what’s the last bit of the equation? What happens if we. just. stop.? IMO, nobody knows and any speculation is just that and not grounded in reality at all. I think we’re free to leave any time we want to, but I’m waiting to see if anyone more enlightened than me can point to some dire consequence that I’m not bright enough to see.