one non-violent solution?

Great Debates
1

Before I begin, let me say that I acknowledge & agree with the many-tools approach to the war on terrorism (i.e., many strategies…some military, some not). But I was wondering about one possible approach that I had not heard discussed…

As we all know, Afghanistan is a shell of a country (extreme poverty, little infrastructure, etc.). The Taliban supposedly took over by force & the rest of the country does not have the will to fight them.

What if, instead of spending X billion dollars on a direct attack, we spend some of that on rebuilding the lives of the opposition to the Taliban in Afghanistan? We give them water wells, food supplies, schools, hospitals, etc. Boost that section of the Afghan population and, over time, they may clean out the terrorists for us either through force or by providing a better quality of life such that people don’t feel so marginalized, desparate, & angry. Plus, once that is done, we may even form a new democratic country in that region. Plus, we may even impress some of the other Islamic countries that continually grumble about the U.S. being a World Policeman. More allies for the war on terrorism.

Ok, perhaps this is too liberal…or more likely, too pie-in-the-sky. But maybe it would be a good long-term move if used in conjunction with improving homeland defenses, improving intelligence gathering/processing, increasing international cooperation, and a few surgical military actions.

Maybe this has been discussed/considered already. If so, what’s the consensus?

2

Looks like gobear just opened a similar thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=89109), but it looks like he is talking about rebuilding after we attack, but I’m talking about rebuilding instead of a large-scale attack.

3

I would say that your heart is in the right place.

But I’m not sure that we can depend upon the goodwill and gratitude of others, no matter how much money get’s tossed at them.

They’d just be even more pissed because we didn’t do it sooner, and hate us that much more.

4

I am not convinced, nor do I have evidence giving me the inclination to believe, that we will wage war against Afghanistan. Depending on Taliban cooperation there may be some small skirmishes, but I don’t think it will lead to all-out warfare… not that the Northern Alliance wouldn’t mind getting some of their territory back, of course.

We already supply Afghanistan with a whole lot of humanitarian aid; frankly, all we have left to do is build infrastructure for them. I am not in a real hurry to do it until after the terrorist camps are down and the Taliban lightens up a bit. I do not want my tax dollars going to them, even for a cause as “noble” as raising their standard of living.

5

The ambassador to the U.N. from Afghanistan (a representative of the Northern Alliance) was on The O’Reilly Factor a week or so ago. He was confident that if we did the airstrikes necessary to destroy the Taliban infrastructure that they could wipe out the Taliban in a few weeks. It may be the best strategy for us, since they know the terrain, etc. Or perhaps U.S. led strikes, with members of the NA to help direct things. We’ll see.

6

ExTank - You may be right. Given the scale & types of terrorist attacks, retaliatory force may be necessary to ensure that it stops. I’m just looking for options given the likely difficulty and losses that will be incurred when sending in ground troops for the long haul & no clear end in sight. I wonder if it would be cheaper too.

I think that, although we can cut off one head of the hydra, more will just keep appearing unless there is a fundamental change.

I was listening to some policy expert/think tank guy on NPR a few days ago and he was saying that the end-goal would be to marginalize terrorists so that they are unable to do any serious damage (i.e., it would be impossible to eliminate terrorism, so marginalizing them would be the next best thing). Makes sense. It will be a long-term effort.

7

In other words, we give the terrorists more soft targets to attack, and right on their front doorstep no less. I’m not trying to poo-poo your idea, I think it would be great if we could win the hearts of the people of [insert contry of choice] by lifting them out of poverty, but until terrorist networks & cells are significantly eliminated, they are going to continue to strike at anything that is, by the definition of the terrorists, unholy. And all of those new hospitals would probably (at least initially) have to be staffed by non-muslim doctors (unless there are a number of “proper muslim” doctors/teachers just waiting around in afganistan for said hospitals/schools to be built.

Put simply, I don’t think the Taliban wants our stinking wells, food supplies, schools, hospitals, etc. They want their people to continue to suffer under the oppressive sanctions of the rest of the world. Don’t forget what kind of element we’re dealing with here:

(Bolding mine)
(Source)

Without a good reason to hate us, the Taliban would probably fall to pieces pretty quickly.

8

erislover - Good points. Note - you could also look at it as if your tax dollars are going to maintain U.S. security (is building infrastructure cheaper than supporting military operations? I’m not sure). But I also wouldn’t want the Taliban/terrorists to take over all the nice infrastructure that is put in place for the other citizens. Catch-22 I guess. So, the idea may not work without long-term occupation anyway.

emarkp - A few weeks of airstrikes could probably be quick & effective against the Taliban but I wonder about the long-term, especially since the Taliban is not the sole problem.

9

Which is part of my original question. At best, the effort either defuses the area or it sparks an internal uprising against the Taliban.

But, I agree with your other points too (i.e., at worst, it helps the Taliban). So far, everyone here seems to agree that we need to remove the immediate problem by force and then we can consider whether or not to stabilize the area (gobear’s thread). I suspect that is what will happen.

10

Of course this will certainly make the terrorists of other countries and beliefs like us a lot too. They certainly wouldn’t want to plant a few bombs to get a few million/billion dollars in return. In fact, if we doubled or tripled our taxes, we could probably cut proportionate checks each year to every other country with a GNP lower than ours just to make sure that they all like us. Of course, we’d also have to go along with any other demand by individual extremists, terrorists and splinter factions but if that what it takes, I’m sure world peace is right around the corner, cuz all it takes is cash.

11

So, damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Am I understanding your position correctly?

12

This can only happen when the Taliban has been overthrown. I know that Bush and Powell aren’t coming out and saying it, but I believe that one of our goals is the end of the Taliban. Saying it right now would be counterproductive, so they’re keeping quiet. But the Taliban is finished.

Once the Taliban is gone, then we can help the Afghans. Most of them do not support the Taliban, most of them do not agree with the un-Islamic crap the Taliban is enforcing.

And I doubt this will motivate terrorists to attack us so that we rebuild their countries. Uh, we’re not going to rebuild Afghanistan just so the Taliban can have it. That’s like complaining that the Marshall plan encouraged Nazism. FIRST we got rid of the Nazis, THEN we started the Marshall plan.

But, remember that a Marshall plan for Afghanistan is going to enrage a lot of people. It will be blasted as cultural imperialism. Hell, it’ll be blasted as plain vanilla Imperialism. You can bet that every leftist calling for help for Afghanistan today will be screaming with rage when it actually happens. And the Islamicists are going to hate it too. Just another example of the West meddling in the Islamic world.

But, I bet the people of Afghanistan will appreciate it.

13

Turbo Dog - Funny…but you’re taking my question to an absurd extreme. As I already stated, it would be difficult to implement without risking helping the terrorists. But if the problem is that the “good Afghans” are too empoverished/weak to get rid of the “bad ones” themselves (especially when it seems that they want to) then I was just wondering if it would be cheaper & more cost-effective in the long-run to help the locals rather than to support an invasion and occupation into a country so difficult to deal with that even the (closer) Russian army still gets the shakes just thinking about it.

Anyway, it was just an idea I wanted to bat around…overall I am leaning toward a quick & obvious (strong message) military removal of the immediate problem and then broader, mostly non-military follow-through to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But I’m sure some military actions will be justified periodically considering all the worldwide terrorist cells.

Attrayant - As noted above, my position is that we “do”. But yeah, the solution/victory is not going to be cut n’ dry.

Lemur866 - I agree with the comments about perceived imperialism by you and Attrayant. The U.S. can’t please everyone, so the question is…what’s best for the U.S. and its allies…hands-on or hands-off? If any U.S. help would be received negatively by the vast majority, then forget it, we can be hard-nosed and simply focus on a straightforward assault on any terrorist threats as they arise.

14

Actually my post was in response to Turbo Dog’s “let’s reward terrorism with cash” hyperbole.

15

I think one of the first things the US should do is fund a state-of-the-art refugee camp for Afghan refugees in Pakistan (or just over the border in Afghanistan.) Such a camp would give the refugees some hope that US wishes them better than the Taliban.

Of course, I do have a more Machiavellian agenda behind such a proposal. A refugee camp is the perfect environment in which to set up an intelligence network…

16

Phobos, I know your heart is in the right place and your intentions are nothing but good, but be very careful with this kind of “help.” Remember Star Trek? There is a lot of substance behind their prime-directive and I wish Americans would pay attention to it more often…

If you insist on helping the Afghans, please do it very slowly, plan your moves over several generations (I’d say at least 4, probably even 10), otherwise you will get hit back with major culture-shock.

Remember, Afghans are not Americans. They’re a different culture and have different mentalities (not better or worse, just different). You can’t just say “well this’ll work on me, so it’ll work on them.”

Let’s say you go to a farm in Afghanistan and build them a well, a school, and a hospital. How will the farmers react? They’ll shout “Who the fuck are you to waltz in here and tell us what we need and how we should live?! Get the hell out of here white man! We’re a proud nation and we don’t need your help.”

So you’ll need the help of some of the modernized locals to introduce your riches to the farmers. So you’ll give money and material to this select group of modernized city-folk and ask them to pass it on to the farmers. This group will think “bah, those farmers don’t deserve this, we’re keeping it all for oursleves.” But the farmers will see this, and they’ll see the gap between them and the city-folks widening even more. Now they’re pissed at the city-folks for getting richer, and they’re pissed at the Americans for helping the city-folks…

Many insiders believe this is what happened in Iran. The Shah decided to westernize Iran, but he did it too quickly. While the city people “got it” and took advantage of his programs, the farmers saw themselves left further behind, got pissed, started a revolution.

If you really want to help: go in and arrest the chief terrorists, then leave the rest of them alone. Leave the whole fucking Middle-East alone, let them grow by themselves, at their own pace. That’s all they’re asking, they’re saying “westerners, let us be.”

And later, when one of their kings comes and asks for help, with dreams of modernizing their country, just say “no, prime-directive.” But a couple of generations later, when a thousand of their farmers come as one and ask for help, only then you can say “let’s sit down and talk.”

17

Thanks everyone…just wanted to float the idea for discussion.

Well, the latest news is that there is fighting among the locals and Taliban in north Afghanistan & that the U.S. is considering supplying aide to help the locals…a similar, but probably more realistic/effective approach.

Wumpus - Good idea. Especially considering that a continuing mass migration of refugees would further destabilize the area. In addition to the intelligence benefits, it would show that our attacks are intended for the Taliban and terrorists, not for the general Afghan population.

readonly - I hear that. A particular example that I find upsetting is to see third-world countries wielding first-world weapons.

18

Yeah, but we Westerners have to look out for our own culture. It is in our best interest not to let a culture exist which hates America so intensely. …And the Muslim world in general hates us for what we do as much as who we are. That’s the problem.

As many here have stated earlier, who is to say that a different Taliban will not spring up down the road if we take the laisse fairesp? approach? We have to occupy the Middle East until a sustainable democratic government is established which is capable of extinguishing rogue extremists.

And if it they hate us (or bomb us) for occupying their country while we rebuild it for them pro bono, then maybe we ought to reconsider helping them at all.

19

That should be “occupy Afganistan”; not the Middle East. Sorry.

20

Acco40, I’m not sure why you think the Muslim world hates Amercia, that is sooo wrong. Most Muslims don’t hate America, but many Middle-Easterners do, and these folks just happen to be Muslim.

Let me repeat this: Muslims DON’T hate America, some people scattered around the world hate America.

And AFAIK, the Middle-Eastern terrorists hate America because Americans are constantly meddling with their affairs. If Americans left them alone, they’ll leave Americans alone.

You see, all things being equal, the Khomeinis, Saddams, and Talibans prefer to wage war against each other instead of hating Americans (they need to wage war against somebody in order to stay on the throne). And it’s easier for them to beat on their neighbors, and they’ve got a better chance of winning. But every time they try to beat on their neighbor, Americans come in and meddle with their affairs. That pisses them off to no end.

But in a way, your approach works better than Phobos’. I see two ways to end all this crap: leave them totally alone, or go in and exterminate them all.

Also, you were right in the first place. You need to occupy the whole Middle-East. Those terrorists in Afghanistan, most of them come from other countries. If you replace Afghanistan with a giant whole, the terrorists’ sons will just start a new movement in another country.