Silly of you to question my credibility when my question is based on statistics that make no assertion about the quality of the education being delivered to girls in Afghanistan. I’ve posed a question about the newsworthiness of a major societal change for the better in Afghanistan which is going from a policy where all girls were banned from attending school to a statistical reality that 4 million girls are now attending school. So if attending schools vs being banned from attending school is not an improvement for Afghan girls in your mind because you question the quality of the education, then your comments about my credibility have no basis in reality, reason or logic.
Do you think 4,000,000 girls who could not attend bad schools in 2000 but are now attending bad schools and acquiring some level of literacy is a static, meaningless or negative shift within Afghan society?
I guess that much we can agree on. Of course, what we are agreeing on isn’t ‘an education’ in any sense we have experienced; generally it’s turning up to a meeting point under a tree where there might be sufficient books and an adult who knows a bit about what they’re talking about. For a couple of years.
Going back to the OP, I guess that’s why this is a topic probably better suited to a 60 Minutes type slot than being a simple ‘newsworthy’ item.
Well, something is causing youth literacy to rise, albeit to a still-dismal 34%, and that’s only an estimate. And the education is meaningful enough that in the 18 months before the National Education Strategic Plan I linked to, 6% of schools had been burned, or closed down due to terrorism. So, the extremists, at least, consider the schools to be a threat, for one reason or another.
Agreed. It’s a feel-good story, but doesn’t really hold up to much scrutiny (I guess that makes it a feel-mildly-positive story), and will probably fall apart soon, under the weight of corruption, reduced aid, cultural norms, and insurgent activity.
You have provided an opening for thinking outside the box on the future of US and NATO involvement + Russia, Iran, India and China, in Afghanistan. As you say “Things will almost certainly decline as the U.S. withdraws troops and money” which may not become noticeable until perhaps one year prior to the start of the US Presidential election nominating season.
So think about these things:
After the attacks in September of 2001 at least 90 percent of polled Americans were in favor of toppling the Taliban controlled government of Afghanistan. Since then as you say 4 million girls there are getting an education that is better than no education. By the end of next year Afghan uniformed security forces will assume control all provinces in Afghanistan. Early in 2015 as US presidential candidates begin exposing their views on foreign affairs it will be quite possible based upon current trends that the Afghans will be holding their own against anti-government killers if there is no peace deal in place by that time. Lets assume US troops are in a total support role and casualties become extremely rare. Then those running for President will have to take a position on whether at significant reduced cost in lives and money they will declare those 90 percent in 2001 of Americans to be right or wrong to topple the Taliban.
The gains I am pointing may in effect start becoming newsworthy. It could start with Fox News leading the way late in Obama’s term making an argument that despite Obama’s incompetence the war effort and the Afghans has made substantial progress. The Dems want complete withdrawal of troops and money which will as you put heartbreakingly mean all the gains out troops have sacrifices will be for naught. The Republican argument could very well be that it won’t take much to preserve what so many Americans gave their lives and limbs for that we should do it as long as the Afghans keep fighting on the front lines and we are their solely for backup and training.
I might hold my nose and vote Republican if the Dem Candidate does not match it.
If it is HRC and she wins the primaries I think she can match it,
I would not want any more US money sent to what is one of the most notiriously corrupt governments in the world. I doubt any sane candidtae is giung to suggest we do.
I’m all for Afghan boys and girls going to school, and the nation trying to reach 19th-century standards, but propping up a corrupt dictatorship-in-the-making and exposing Americans to danger is too dear a price for it.
Perhaps, if the April 2014 Afghani election isn’t a complete sham (fat chance), and Karzai actually leaves power, then more aid money is justifiable.
If you are truly illiterate, you have to ↓dial a phone by memorizing the pattern you use to punch the keypad. It’s certainly not impossible, but it’s an order of magnitude more difficult than simply being able to read numbers. I had an elderly illiterate relative in this situation.
“In an e-mailed statement, a senior administration official said intelligence assessments are “only one tool in our policy analysis toolbox.””
And you are also wrong on what the NIE said. There is an “if”
Involved as in IF the security pact is not signed by Karzai. The pact that Elders approved in the Loya Jirga.
Can anything change in Afghanistan or is that impossible. Karzai cannot run again. He’s out in 2014. Will you give the next elected government a chance? So the fastest way to wipe out the gains made is to cut off the money and you are in favor of that. Duly noted.
It’s the sum total of what all the intelligence agencies think. If they don’t like the result, I suppose they can shake the magic 8-ball, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the best info we have. That is not to say it’s perfect, but it’s the best we have.
No, I’m not wrong. “If” the security pact is not signed, then things go downhill faster. Here is what they say about that possibility:
I already quoted what they said would likely happen even if the pact is signed.
You might want to remember that our purpose here is to fight ignorance, not spread it.
Big if, small if, it is an if and John Mace deleted that if, and wrote “Obama administration predicts that it will get significantly worse in the next few years”. The Obama Administration has made no such prediction. I quoted the WH position from the report that John Mace cited and here it is again:
“intelligence assessments are “only one tool in our policy analysis toolbox.””
So first things first is setting the record straight on what John Mace posted.
I’ll get into Karzai and signing the security pact that was approved in a Loya Jirga
Which is one hell of an endorsement from Afghans elders and tribal leaders.
I would be concerned if the elders opposed it and Jarzai
wanted to sign it before he would.
“The report predicts that Afghanistan would likely descend into chaos quickly if Washington and Kabul don’t sign a security pact that would keep an international military contingent there beyond 2014”
This was translated and used in an argument as such:
“And, sadly, the Obama administration predicts that it will get significantly worse in the next few years.”
The report cited is the NIE provided to the White House. The White will use it as one of their tools to set policy. The report should not be attributed to the White House it should be attribute to the source from which it came.
Accuracy and context should be important in an effort to stamp out ignorance.
That does not sound like a White House prediction that gains will be lost quickly if the security pact is not signed by Karzai. It sounds like the White House has more confidence at least in the capabilty of Afghan Security Forces than the authors from outside the White House that put together the latest NIE.
It matters because you are making an argument that attempts to draw the White House into supporting your pessimistic view on the progress made by our troops so not only did you attribute a prediction to the White House that it did not make but you left out the major context from the NIE in why the dire prediction was made.
The report about the NIE and White House reaction goes like this.
“Afghanistan gains will be lost quickly after drawdown, U.S. intelligence estimate warns”
Why did you take upon yourself to write that it was a White House prediction.
You could have written that the NIE predicts as this report claims, but you changed it to Obama Administration predicts …
What’s your point? I know what the majority sentiment on the war is. The war is reality to the men and women serving there and there families waiting for them to come home. And the Christmas goodwill we see in that gathering between Americans and Afghans who have been fighting the same fierce enemy for so long is not negated by the poll you cited.
I have no idea what you are trying to say by posting a CNN poll.
Perhaps you can explain it so please do.
Do you think Americans oppose a Christmas get together between our brave men and women and theirs? What?
