Oh! What a Lovely [Afghanistan] War

The BBQ Pit
81

The problem with Afghanistan is that there is no clear path to victory. This has always been the problem with Afghanistan. In Iraq, there was at least a plausible exit strategy. Iraq was a country that has a reasonably well educated population, a middle class of sorts, and which had a large standing army. If you could build up a civil society, rebuild the defense forces, then theoretically you could go home and let them fend for themselves.

Nothing like this exists in Afghanistan. The U.S. could kill every Taliban tomorrow - and then what? Go home? Leaving exactly what behind? Afghanistan is dirt poor. It has no ability to look after itself. It is shot through with tribalism and warlords. Pakistan next door is a breeding ground for radicals.

This notion that Afghanistan wouldn’t be a problem if only Bush hadn’t ‘taken his eye off the ball’ is ridiculous. Unless you can point to a strategy he could have undertaken that would have resulted in some form of ‘victory’ today, this is just Bush hatred masquerading as ‘support’ for the ‘right’ war.

The fact is, the war in Afghanistan isn’t going to end - at least, not on any terms that will make the American people very happy. More likely, Afghanistan is giong to be a permanent military frontier - the U.S. will need to maintain forces there indefinitely, of a size that at least allows for its own defense (i.e. it can’t be overrun, and it can maintain bases tht are secure). These forces will engage in constant skirmishes with the Taliban and Al-Qaida, and hopefully prevent the country from completely collapsing and being taken over by radicals again.

Be prepared for constant low levels of casualties, with no end in sight.

Or, the administration might ‘double down’, send a whole lot more troops into Afghanistan, and start making major expeditions into Taliban-held territory to kill as many as possible. In the proccess, the U.S. will take even more casualties. Hell, it might even be the right thing to do - I’d take the advice of the generals on the ground. But it’s not going to be easy, it’s not going to be pretty, and I have no idea how it leads to any sort of ‘victory’.

The strange thing is that, aside from a few people in this forum, the left has stopped caring. Even though Afghanistan is now deadlier than Iraq ever was (more casualties per soldier in-country are being taken in Afghanistan right now than in Iraq at the peak of the violence there). It seems war is only bad if a Republican is running it. Or maybe all those protests were just political theater. Just like how Bill Clinton could actually sign the Defense of Marriage Act with very little noise from the gay community, but they marched on Bush for merely upholding Clinton’s law.

Byron York:

82

As you know damn well, nearly all of us supported the Afghanistan invasion from the beginning, and in any case we could hardly blame Obama (or McCain, had he won) for attempting to deal with a mess his predecessor left.

The Clinton comparison is simply ridiculous. Gay rights in this country have taken a huge step forward since 1996; hell, even Bob Barr has apologised for DOMA, and it was his bill.

83

So was it honour, hospitality, or sanctuary when the Taliban committed this atrocity of genocide?

"The worst attack on civilians came in summer of 1998 when the Taliban swept north from Herat to the predominantly Hazara and Uzbek city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the largest city in the north. Entering at 10 am on 8 August 1998, for the next two days the Taliban drove their pickup trucks “up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved — shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys.”[72] More than 8000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan.[73] Contrary to the injunctions of Islam, which demands immediate burial, the Taliban forbade anyone to bury the corpses for the first six days while they rotted in the summer heat and were eaten by dogs."

They don’t even follow the Laws of the Prophet- except when it fits their own goals- why should they be bound by mere customs?

84

…whilst on another message board Taliban members are discussing how the Allies commit grave breaches of the Geneva Convention when it suits their goals.

85

Ahahahahahahahaha your credibility is forfeit.

86

Nevertheless grave breaches of the Geneva Convention have occurred. Not good to hand terrorists ideal propaganda and recruiting material, if you want to seriously engage the problem, and not forfeit some sort of moral high-ground.

87

Do you believe the West generally treats a soldier who drove through an Afghan town shooting everyone in sight differently than the Taliban generally treats one of their own who did the same thing?

88

Who the fuck is “we”, you got crabs? :dubious:

89

Really? Has the Hague handed down any charges? Has the Red Cross brought complaints and sanctions?

Your opinion as to what are “grave breaches” don’t mean shit in International Law.

90

Actually, I’m quite willing to submit that grave violations of the Geneva Conventions have occurred. It’s rather hard to say that they haven’t. Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Enhanced interrogation techniques.

The difference is that each of these was a scandal here, and while little accountability has resulted, these are matters generally taken very seriously of the public.

I don’t see any kind of outcry from the Taliban’s constituency about beheadings, summary executions, and the neverending list of atrocities that they have wreaked continuously for more than a decade.

91

In high school I hoped to demonstrate my tenor voice to all singing “When This Bloody War is Over” in our production of “Oh, What a Lovely War,” but work intervened. :frowning:

This isn’t the point of this thread?

92

Gitmo rose as far as a “concern” to the Int’l Red Cross (who are the only ones authorized to enforce the Geneva Conventions). Apparently they found a few violations, asked us to fix them, and we did.

So, hardly “grave violations”. Now, nothing we should be proud of either, sure. But the point is- the group in charge of enforcing the Conventions had free access for Inspections, made those Inspections, had “concerns” *and we fixed the violations. *

93

The Red Cross is NOT in charge of enforcing the provisions. You don’t know what you’re talking about. They are an advisory body, not an enforcement mechanism. The ICRC would certainly object to your view, as they are bound by their own rules to offer confidential advisory opinions to countries who sign up to the treaties, not act as a judge or prosecutor.

Enforcement of the Convention and the Protocols is a national responsibility of each country as a state party to the treaties. There is no enforcement mechanism to the treaties other than those that a country is supposed to take to uphold its obligations.

And let us be careful to define what is actually a “grave violation” of the Convention and the Protocols. The conventions state: “Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

If you think that Abu Ghraib and enhanced interrogation techniques don’t constitute “inhuman treatment,” then I just don’t know what to say. The fact that we supposedly corrected the issues that the ICRC brought to our attention only lends further support to my view that we engaged in inhumane treatment and did not wish to continue it.

94

They are the only body, group or org with any authority over the Geneva Conventions.

*The ICRC has a legal mandate from the international community. That mandate has two sources:

* the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which task the ICRC with visiting prisoners, organizing relief operations, re-uniting separated families and similar humanitarian activities during armed conflicts; 

* the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), which encourage it to undertake similar work in situations of internal violence, where the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

The Geneva Conventions are binding instruments of international law, applicable worldwide. The Statutes of the Movement are adopted at the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which takes place every four years, and at which States that are party to the Geneva Conventions take part, thereby conferring a quasi-legal or “soft law” status on the Statutes.*

wiki: "It is the only institution explicitly named under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a controlling authority. The legal mandate of the ICRC stems from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as its own Statutes."

True, they have no “arrest” powers, as such. However, no one else has any authority at all to determine what is and is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Now, the USA did investigate abuses at Abu Ghraib, and here’s what occurred (wiki)*“The United States Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and March 2006, eleven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005.”
*

See *that’s *the difference. When one of our guys crosses the line, we hold trials and then punish the guilty as appropriate. They promote the bastards and promise them glories in the heaven.

95

Well they’re furiners, after all. Different culture and all that, wot, wot! Can’t expect the fuzzy wuzzies to think and act like us. Damnable savages, dontchya know?[/channeling the The Major (Fawlty Towers)]

As a counterpoint to what I said earlier about culture. Culture does play an important role in how people act. We think it is savage what the Taliban did when they were in control of Afghanistan. So, do the people who it was done to. Yet, if those same people were in charge they would probably act in a similar manner, to a lesser or greater degree, and think they were doing was as correct as the Taliban. The average person wants to be left alone to bring up his family as he sees fit the same as you and I, but it doesn’t mean that he won’t be down in the village throwing rocks at a bound up woman (probably raped and guilty because of it) until she was dead and then on the way home thinks a good days bit of work had been done.

In order to change the fate of the country you have to change the culture. You have to have control of the country to do that. How do you gain control in a country that is so hampered by their culture?

96

Ladies and gentlemen, the Leeroy Jenkins school of military affairs.

It is an interesting article from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about. You should read it.

You are misreading what is being stated, and They are a non-governmental organization that carries out certain tasks that stem from various articles of international law. They are essentially observers and rapporteurs, not enforcers. It is by virtue of this status that they are able to do their work. Anyone involved with the ICRC would tell you that the reason the organization is successful is that they carry out their business not as the GC cops, or Amnesty International style advocates.

Which is my point.

97

I haven’t worked successfully in Yemen for the last 8 years without having an understanding of culture and how it affects what you do.
Unfortunately, Capt. Chamberlain is wrong on his main point about how to advise counterparts. By giving any weight to the ‘networks’ (I like that term), you validate them. You must always emphasize your impartiality and only reward performance and ability. You can not give credence to anyone who wants to use their network for personal gain. That is what must be imparted. If you do otherwise you risk losing respect and support you have gained with people of other networks. Impartiality and respect based upon performance and ability. Now his role was different than mine and on a far larger scale, but I believe the fundamentals are the same.
I know this from experience. The same network games apply here. I make sure I put into place clear and unambiguous policies. While someone may not be pleased with the results, they can’t argue that I am playing favorites for any reason other than the ones I stipulated. They are more relaxed because they know the rules. While some may be upset because they figure they ‘deserve’ more based upon who they are, they can’t complain because it would look bad for them. Even they respect the consistency. And after a while, you no longer have people playing those games (at least at work, the culture is too strong to expect to overcome it once they leave work).