# Oh! What a Lovely \[Afghanistan\] War **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 15, 2009, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503 "2009-08-15T07:43:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/41 "2009-08-16T10:37:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > So why are we fighting? Damage mitigation presumably, due to the damage we’ve now done. Why? In order to impose a form of control - sorry government - the population would reject in an instance if they could. The idea was and remains to deny extemists safe refuge by ousting their hosts (the Taliban). The tactic selected was classic inperialist conquest and occupation, against an enemy that has always won against inperialist conquest and occupation - score the neo-cons. The correct response was always the tactic currently employed; developed Intel, special forces, drones, work the Pakistan government. It could still be, but this farce in Afghanistan is not contributing anything to the war in the tribal areas of Pakistan against the actual enemy. Instead it’s making a martyr of an entire country. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/42 "2009-08-16T11:02:39Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Why? In order to impose a form of control - sorry government - the population would reject in an instance if they could. Yes, somewhat preaching to the choir. I was just trying to think of a reason why anyone would think there is a virtue in still being involved. And **Uzi** , I hope your step-son doesn’t end up dead or injured. But equally I hope he doesn’t take your advice and kill any man, woman or child, without due cause. Especially in the latter case, and how you could suggest this, even if jokingly, which it didn’t feel like you were, is simply beyond my moral comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/43 "2009-08-16T11:16:36Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Sure, everyone has the high moral ground, and everyone has God on their side. > > And all the while the \*realpolitik \*marches to a different beat. _March of the Clowns_ ? For something that is supposed to be about being “realistic”, it’s fascinating just how unrealistic and self destructive “_realpolitik_” is. Much of America’s history consists of bloody and expensive attempts to deal with the consequences of that so called realism. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/44 "2009-08-16T12:24:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > _March of the Clowns_ ? > > For something that is supposed to be about being “realistic”, it’s fascinating just how unrealistic and self destructive “_realpolitik_” is. Much of America’s history consists of bloody and expensive attempts to deal with the consequences of that so called realism. It sure makes for an interesting story, though. Something to tuck the kiddies into bed with. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/45 "2009-08-16T12:36:54Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > Especially in the latter case, and how you could suggest this, even if jokingly, which it didn’t feel like you were, is simply beyond my moral comprehension. Because I don’t treat war as something to take lightly. Things like the Geneva convention to me are a joke. If you go to war, you should go to WAR. Thus, only in the most dire circumstances should you do so, but when you do so, anyone on the ‘other side’ is the enemy or potential enemy. Those who fight against you, anyone who supports enemy combatants, anyone who harbors enemy combatants are all fair game and continue to be regarded as such until the white flag is flown. At the end of the day you have unimaginable carnage, but a number of things should occur. Those who are left don’t want to fight anymore and will not support those who do so because they fear you more than them. Or, no one is left. Which while it isn’t the humane or ideal solution is an actual solution that solves the problem. I also believe that the first role of any government is to protect their own people. That means that if you have to kill every single one of the enemy to protect your own citizen then you do so. Your job isn’t to protect the other side. If you have two choices to accomplish your objective, one to send in troops on the ground with the potential for them to take casualties, or have no casualties by dropping bombs from 50,000’ and wipe out the whole village harboring the sniper, then it should be good-bye village. WAR is a nasty business. We are fighting people in Afghanistan who regularly fight among each other. For them this is business as usual. It would take something truly horrendous to get through to them that the consequences of fighting us are unacceptable. Just like the Japanese realized when the bomb was dropped on them. They saw that to continue risked total annihilation. If you don’t take people to the brink they won’t change. If you are not going to do what it takes to win then all that happens is that people got killed needlessly and things go back to what they were before you intervened. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/46 "2009-08-16T15:35:09Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I also believe that the first role of any government is to protect their own people. That means that if you have to kill every single one of the enemy to protect your own citizen then you do so. Your job isn’t to protect the other side. If you have two choices to accomplish your objective, one to send in troops on the ground with the potential for them to take casualties, or have no casualties by dropping bombs from 50,000’ and wipe out the whole village harboring the sniper, then it should be good-bye village. Total war is a practice that cannot be employed successfully in a guerrilla war, where the very purpose is to create, sustain, and extend the writ of a native government. By having no care for whether civilians are killed or not - particularly when they are being forced to harbor or allow safe passage to guerrillas - you are setting up the groundwork for a never-ending war. If foreign troops start living up to an “infidel” stereotype that places no value on Afghan, Tajik, Pashtun, etc. lives, then the once-passive support of civilians can become a lot more active. It isn’t about protecting the other side, it’s about maintaining or trying to maintain a moral high ground. If you don’t have this, or at least strive to have this, then you’re just another jack-booted imperialist warlord who is fighting for power alone. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/47 "2009-08-16T16:14:19Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > That’s because you aren’t willing to do what it takes to win. That Taliban were able to control Afghanistan and Saddam was able to control Iraq. The Taliban never had 100% control of the nation. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/48 "2009-08-16T16:31:28Z")
Just looked at a map and I see Afghanistan has lots of mountains; can the nuclear weapons of today turn mountains into flat, even land? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/49 "2009-08-16T18:28:26Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > … There is no way that a backwards country like Afghanistan can be changed overnight. This should have been a long term operation of 20+ years. … _Cantico del [del]Sole[/del] [Saur](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saur_Revolution)_\* … The thought of what Afghanistan, The thought of what Afghanistan, The thought of what Afghanistan would be like, If the Soviets had been allowed to support [Mohammad Najibullah](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Najibullah) and the PDPA/Hizb-i Watan, and the U.S. didn’t just have to play “Cold War” games and use the worst of the mujahideen to create “The Soviet’s Viet Nam”, and then ignore Charlie Wilson’s wisdom that after you win the war you really need to win the peace too, Troubles my sleep. … \*With apologies to Ezra Pound … I guess? Can we all agree, these decades later, that a communist Afghanistan would have been far far preferable to a Taliban Afghanistan? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/50 "2009-08-16T18:51:33Z")
Ok. Plan A. The whole nation-building storyline. That one failed. Time for Plan B. Nuke from orbit. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/51 "2009-08-16T18:57:27Z")
> [@glee](#): > > The UK has suffered nearly 200 casualties in Afghanistan so far. (We have about 8,300 troops there.) > We’ve been there for 8 years and spent billions of pounds. More men were lost in a day at Agincourt, and that was 600 years ago and from a much smaller overall military force. > [@](#): > > In March this year, the outgoing commander of US forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, told the BBC that “we are not winning” in the struggle against the resurgent Taliban. We definitely were not and still aren’t winning the war in Afghanistan, but we’re certainly in no danger of losing it. The Afghans could spend the next fifty years killing a paltry number of Americans and our overall manpower would still increase, not decrease. The concern about Afghanistan is it’s a war without solid direction. At first we wanted to knock the Taliban out of power–we did that. Then we went off on a tangent and started trying to prop up some pseudo-democracy, things started to go south, we stopped paying much attention to Afghanistan and fast forward 8 years and the Taliban is a resurgent force and Afghanistan is becoming more violent. However, the level of “violence” in Afghanistan is no concern to me whatsoever. I’ll be perfectly content to see them butchering each other for another fifty years. My concern is Afghanistan as a “safe haven” for groups like Al-Qaeda. Our focus should be much more limited than implementing sweeping sociopolitical changes in Afghanistan, it should be focused on finding ways to make sure Afghanistan isn’t a terrorist haven, or at least not a terrorist haven that trains terrorists who attack _us_. By getting “involved” in the greater Afghan “situation” we’re definitely getting involved in a very bad thing. Something that could take decades and cost a vast amount of resources for virtually no gain. There are other countries in the world, populated by Muslims, with strong “anti-American” sentiments; not all of these countries are safe havens for active Al-Qaeda-esque operations. It’s definitely possible to work something out with the various leaders of Afghanistan. The proportion of Afghans that are die-hard Anti-American suicide-bomber types is quite small. Most of them have much more limited focus, and we’d be off their radar entirely if not for us, you know, having thousands of soldiers on the ground. > [@](#): > > Surprisingly neither of these two chaps suggested your methods. 😕 > (But what do they know?) Neither of them said “hey, screw democracy let’s just work out a deal with warlords?” Yeah, big surprise. Keep in mind their commander in chief doesn’t want that being said, he wants to live in the same fairy tale land that Bush did, one in which we’re there for the “Afghan people” to give them “civilization and democracy.” No way a general (who despite his rank is still a soldier who has a boss) is going to publicly say he thinks we should have a more limited policy towards Afghanistan. Ultimately, that is **outside** the purview of what a general should be spouting off about, the General’s job is to implement not to make the policy-shaping decisions. > [@](#): > > [tollbit-host.com](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/4960902/US-general-admits-coalition-not-winning-in-large-areas-of-Afghanistan-including-British-run-south.html) > > In October 2008, the then commander of British forces in Helmand, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, went further: “We’re not going to win this war.” > > [http://www.military-world.net/index.php?news=782](http://www.military-world.net/index.php?news=782) In its current form: certainly we won’t. Well, at least in my opinion. But you seem to be losing focus again, I never said we were winning the war, and in fact my post **very clearly** was a **very** strong condemnation of U.S. policy goals in Afghanistan. I’m opposed to our current war aims simply because it is not feasible to shape Western-style democratic institutions in Afghanistan, as long as that remains our overall war aim we’re fighting a war that cannot be won. What I find surprising is you’re quoting this in response to me, when I’ve **never once** said I like the way things are going in Afghanistan or even once said that I think our _current_ aims there are good. The fact that a general said “we’re not going to win this war” when the current war aims are “build a functioning democratic society in Afghanistan” says nothing as to what his opinion would be if our goal was “prop up warlords that can be shaped by the west.” > [@](#): > > I quote from today’s Guardian (which has been running a series on Afghanistan): > > ‘The provinces of Khost, Paktia and Paktika in SE Afghanistan are dominated by one name: Jaluddin Haqqani. A famous commander, tribal chief and cleric, Haqqani came to prominence during the war against the Soviets. In more than 20 years of fighting, he built an extensive network of influence that covered eastern Afghanistan and the tribal area of Waziristan in Pakistan, and reached as far as the Gulf states…’ > > ‘The reporter interviewed Mawlawi Jalali, a Taliban commander: > “We are Muslims. The foreign troops are non-Muslims. God told us to fight the occupation.”’ That’s obviously an example of one leader we may not be able to work with. But he’s not all Afghan leaders, remember the Taliban is but one of many factions trying to carve out of a piece of the countryside. Also keep in mind we’ve crushed the Taliban before, and most likely if we had put the right warlords in place after doing that the first time they wouldn’t have come back. > [@](#): > > As for the heroin trade: > > ‘Russian gangsters who smuggle drugs into Britain are buying cheap heroin from Afghanistan and paying for it with guns. Smugglers told The Independent how Russian arms dealers meet Taliban drug lords at a bazaar near the old Afghan-Soviet border, deep in Tajikistan’s desert. The bazaar exists solely to trade Afghan drugs for Russian guns – and sometimes a bit of sex on the side. > The drugs are destined for Britain’s streets. The guns go straight to the Taliban front line. The weapons on sale include machine guns, sniper rifles and anti-aircraft weapons like the ones used in the attempt to assassinate the Afghan President Hamid Karzai.’ > > [Drugs for guns: how the Afghan heroin trade is fuelling the Taliban insurgency | The Independent | The Independent](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/drugs-for-guns-how-the-afghan-heroin-trade-is-fuelling-the-taliban-insurgency-817230.html) You’ve basically confirmed you lack nuance. My original comment was that “Afghanistan has no sort of united hatred of “Christian” invaders, or even the marketing of heroin, actually. It shows that you don’t really understand the nuances of the situation and makes me think you aren’t well prepared for this discussion.” In response, you’ve shown a quote from the Guardian in which a **Taliban** leader says he’s fighting against non-Muslims because god told him so. I never denied _some_ Afghans were fighting us for just that reason. I said **not all Afghans** are united in that view. You seem to be under the impression that there is a “U.S. and Allies vs. Taliban” situation in Afghanistan. That’s probably because you’re a touch stupid; the situation is much more complicated than that. The reality is there is a patchwork of tribal alliances and there are various groups within Afghanistan who range from actively supporting us to actively opposing us (and all the stances in between.) Some of them aren’t particularly “Taliban-esque” in their political or philosophical stances. As for heroin, again, I never said some Afghans weren’t profiting from the heroin trade. I think anyone who can read a newspaper knows it is a major source of funding for the Taliban. I simply was pointing out that Afghanistan isn’t covered in poppy fields from north to south, and some parts of the country are not traditionally associated with the cultivation of poppies at all. If you come back at me with such a stupid, ill-conceived response again then do **not** expect me to reply. When I make a totally accurate statement that “not all Afghans have the same opinion of Americans, or even the same opinions on the heroin trade” don’t come back with a “singular” example. That just **proves** my point, you fucking moron. The point is, “yes, some do feel one way” but “not all of them.” > [@](#): > > Perhaps you could give **your** sources for your ‘well-preparedness’ in this discussion. :rolleyes: I think I’ve already shown you’re an idiot. I also have come to the realization you most likely are just one of those types that likes to snipe at any and all military action because you have deep-seated opposition to the concept of western governments and are probably one of those leftists who feels that any western military action is just an act of “evil” imperialism. Since this most likely colors your view on everything it has rendered you incapable of looking at Afghanistan as the “patchwork of grays” that it is and instead you can only think about it in terms of generalities and platitudes. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/52 "2009-08-16T19:04:16Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I am really, _really_ surprised the UK and Australia got involved in Afghanistan. > > The British Empire said “You know what? This is entirely too much hassle” and cut their losses there in the early 1840s, and we know how fond they were of meddling in countries full of Non-Europeans. > > So deciding that things would be different the next time around- _after_ the Russians had proven that wasn’t going to be the case- just baffles the imagination, it really does. Have you forgotten? Tony Blair –\> George Bush = Poodle –\> Master ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/53 "2009-08-16T19:12:06Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > Excellent suggestions for fighting terrorism. Lets fund, arm and provide training for any warlord prepared to temporarily align, or at least pretend to align, to our political wishes. This strategy couldn’t possibly go wrong again, surely? > > And yes punitive, isolated attacks on [del]whichever unfortunate wedding party[/del] Al-Qaeda operatives are a completely sensible means to secure ourselves from terrorism, and probably won’t create that many more people with a visceral hatred of the west. I’ve made my strategy known, what is yours? The way I see it there are really only a few “broad-brush” ways to go about it: **I.Leave with no reservations, hope Afghanistan doesn’t become a hot bed of anti-American terrorist activity** This actually isn’t a totally bankrupt plan. I’m conservative (in the “cautious” sense), though, and I don’t really know that I want to “roll the dice” this way. I do think there’s a decent chance if we just left and cut all ties with Afghanistan it’d become so chaotic that the vast majority of Afghans would be involved in the day to day business of civil war. However, the very level of lawlessness would probably mean you’d see terrorist camps popping up, if for no other reason than even local warlords would probably have no real means to stop that from happening. The way I see it, if we followed this strategy we’d have to keep a very close eye on Afghanistan and periodically be prepared to engage in “surgical strikes” to wipe out known terrorist training camps. The problem is for every camp you see there will probably be five more that no form of intelligence gathering will pick up. **II. Install “Strong Men” in the various tribal regions that are amenable to keeping their slice of Afghanistan free of terrorist training camps** This was my proposal and I think I’ve outlined why I think it will work. Have there been examples in the past in which we’ve trained and armed militants who later used that training and those arms against us? Sure, but I still think it a preferable strategy to Option I and I think by and large the international arms market is active enough that if people really want stuff to attack us with they’ll get it one way or another. We can’t be paralyzed with fear of arming militants due to some symbolic fear that those guns and weapons will later be used against us. If not our guns, it’d be someone’s guns. **III. Follow the “Current” approach of trying to unify Afghanistan, instill in it Western-style democratic traditions and transform its people into a people that _wants_ to be friendly with the West** This is the “broadest brush” and there are probably a dozen different “sub-strategies” or different approaches you could use in trying to achieve this strategy. The reason I’m opposed to it is: 1. Far too much factionalism in Afghanistan standing in the way of any form of national unity. 2. No broad base support or experience with Western democratic traditions. Comparatively speaking the people of Iraq (and even Iran) are much more “modern” in their political experiences and thoughts than the Afghans. Democracy in Iraq and Iran are still very questionable things, if that is true then I can only conclude it is more or less impossible in Afghanistan. The reason democracy has trouble taking root is people who are used to settling power struggles by fighting have a hard time accepting a loss at the ballot box. Until that reality is changed it makes the whole concept extremely difficult. 3. Would require a _lengthy_ U.S. occupation (which is already at 8 years and counting.) It would require far greater troop levels than we have at current, and the current level of spending would have to increase (last I saw I believe it was around $12 billion a month.) This is put against the background of deeper national debt, a recession, plans to implement vast amounts of public health care spending and et cetera. Unless we’re willingly to significantly change our tax burden we can’t afford this approach. 4. Would result in thousands of dead American soldiers. I’m retired U.S. Army and few things compare on a _personal_ level to losing a comrade in arms. However I was also educated to look past the personal, the individual. In the grand scheme of things a few thousand dead American soldiers is not really a very high price to pay. I never thought the losses in Vietnam were that significant in terms of how they affected overall military manpower, what was troubling about the losses in Vietnam is they appeared to happen due to a needless and fruitless military endeavor. Few people complain bitterly about the 415,000 dead from World War II–everyone recognizes it was necessary (and that was a far greater loss in a much shorter time span than we suffered in Vietnam.) I don’t have a problem with wars that result in losing thousands–you sometimes **must** be willing to fight such wars. Under this strategy, the current American strategy this is **not** one of those wars and thus I cannot support an approach like this. Of the three outlined approaches, which do you think would work best? Or do you have some other ideas? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/54 "2009-08-16T19:24:31Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > Well I apologise for the collective stupidity regarding its difficulty I seem to share with those currently operating there, and pretty much any military force, bar perhaps Alexander the Great, that has attempted to ‘conquer’ the country in the last couple of millennia. If I was going to lob accusations of being stoopid around, I might wish to consider ideas held on carpet bombing a country as an appropriate means to ensure peace and stability, and the likelihood of parachuting in ‘secular western ideas and culture’, by these, or frankly any other means. Be a better student of history: Afghanistan is well known as a region that has been conquered many many times. No, it was never conquered “permanently” by one power that held it in perpetuity–but then, nothing ever is. However several of the ancient Empires held it for centuries, which is pretty good as far as conquests go. Keep in mind the Romans are legendary and they only held their empire together for a few hundred years at its greatest expanse. The Medean Empire controlled portions of Afghanistan for significant periods of time, the Persian Empire held Afghanistan for 200 years, the Seleucids held it for nearly 100 years (trading away parts of it to the Mauryan Empire.) You can follow the time line from there, there are many conquests after those. Mind that the Mongol conquest persisted for something like 300 years. A lot of people lately have been trying to portray Afghanistan as “unconquerable” which is mostly hogwash. Stories abound about how even “Genghis Khan” couldn’t subjugate the Afghans. Again, hogwash. Historically speaking many regions have been “troublesome” to keep under thumb (for example the Romans had a hell of a time with Judea), but that doesn’t mean they weren’t conquered. There have been several periods throughout the history of the region known today as “Afghanistan” in which powerful outside Empires effectively held control for centuries at a time. I remember similar tales about Vietnam going around in the 70s–about how it was this “unconquerable” province because they had valiantly fought the Chinese. When in fact, Vietnam was effectively part of the various Chinese Empires for **1,000 years**. Sure, they rebelled periodically, but if you look at the history of _any region_ under the rule of _any Empire_ you’ll probably find some historical accounts of rebellion. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/55 "2009-08-17T04:02:19Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > **II. Install “Strong Men” in the various tribal regions that are amenable to keeping their slice of Afghanistan free of terrorist training camps** > > This was my proposal and I think I’ve outlined why I think it will work. > > Have there been examples in the past in which we’ve trained and armed militants who later used that training and those arms against us? Sure, but I still think it a preferable strategy to Option I and I think by and large the international arms market is active enough that if people really want stuff to attack us with they’ll get it one way or another. We can’t be paralyzed with fear of arming militants due to some symbolic fear that those guns and weapons will later be used against us. If not our guns, it’d be someone’s guns. The point is not whose guns militants are shooting. Indeed, it usually won’t be our guns even if we do give them a lot, just because NATO ammunition and spare parts are hard to find in bulk on the black market, and Warsaw Pact ammunition and parts aren’t. The point is that the appearance of benevolence must be maintained, or future operations will become impossible, or at least more difficult. It’s already reaching that point- Bush I told the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam, and they did so, expecting the US to support their insurgency. Instead, we abandoned them as soon as the oilfields of Kuwait were safe, and Saddam slaughtered and imprisoned the insurgents by the thousand. We, of course, pretended to be appalled at this behavior. Then we actually _were_ surprised when we went back to Iraq, and the people there weren’t happy to see us. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/56 "2009-08-17T04:32:01Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > It isn’t about protecting the other side, it’s about maintaining or trying to maintain a moral high ground. If you don’t have this, or at least strive to have this, then you’re just another jack-booted imperialist warlord who is fighting for power alone. Is the moral high ground we are trying to maintain respected by our enemies, or does it just make us look weak? If we want to maintain control in an area the respects strength then we should be strong. People who house the Taliban do so because they fear the Taliban more than us. When we get to the point where the villagers drive out the Taliban on their own because they fear the consequences of what would happen should we find them there, then we have won and can start rebuilding the country. In the mean time all we can do is support War Lords who will do the dirty work we, on the moral high ground, won’t do. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/57 "2009-08-17T04:39:50Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Is the moral high ground we are trying to maintain respected by our enemies, or does it just make us look weak? > If we want to maintain control in an area the respects strength then we should be strong. People who house the Taliban do so because they fear the Taliban more than us. When we get to the point where the villagers drive out the Taliban on their own because they fear the consequences of what would happen should we find them there, then we have won and can start rebuilding the country. In the mean time all we can do is support War Lords who will do the dirty work we, on the moral high ground, won’t do. A reasonable but short-sighted position. The Taliban don’t need to claim the moral high ground because they don’t have to worry about international trade, human rights violations, UN sanctions or even the war they’re going to fight _tomorrow_. We do. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/58 "2009-08-17T04:47:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We do. That’s my point and that is why we can’t win. Essentially, we’re pussies who won’t do what it takes to win. We’d have lost both world wars if we fought them like this. You essentially have to take away the tools to fight and the will to fight. They have both. We can’t win. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/59 "2009-08-17T04:53:25Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Essentially, we’re pussies who won’t do what it takes to win. We’d have lost both world wars if we fought them like this. You essentially have to take away the tools to fight and the will to fight. They have both. We can’t win. Neither world war is in any way analogous to our present situation. The Afghans don’t produce their own weapons and don’t threaten us directly. If we were to fight this war like World War II we’d bomb Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad, Herat, Mazaqui Sharif and any other sizeable community in the country, which would at a stroke kill any friendly Afghan, turn every neutral one against us, and gain us nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503/60 "2009-08-17T07:15:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Afghans don’t produce their own weapons and don’t threaten us directly This is why we shouldn’t be there other than to ensure our actual enemies aren’t supported by whatever regime takes control of Afghanistan and you can probably accomplish that with bombers from on high without stepping foot on the ground. > [@](#): > > …which would at a stroke kill any friendly Afghan, turn every neutral one against us, and gain us nothing. They don’t need to be for us, they just have to stop fighting us. It could take half the population’s heads piled in skull mountains for the rest to put down their arms, or stop supporting our enemies, but there you go. WAR shouldn’t be done for kicks, or by the squeamish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-what-a-lovely-afghanistan-war/506503.md?page=4)