# US General uses "V" word in Afghan War - Only 4 US Combat Deaths since Jan 1. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554 "2013-03-10T14:23:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/141 "2013-03-18T21:16:14Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > _That’s_ what you’re so optimistic about? Best case scenario, then, is a weak central government that lasts a decade or two, until one warlord or another, or a faction of them, feel like they’re getting a raw deal and overthrow it. No, I see that as the targeted best result of the several thugs I am optimistic about. Namely over three million girls in school, some have been in school since 2002. That means there are at least a couple million families that reject the Talban’s extremist ways. I see the villagers’ uprisings in the heart of a Taliban former stronghold, as a good trend for long term obstruction against the return of Taliban tyranny over any major populated area. I see more and more events such as the following as trending mire toward optimism than toward a return to what was. > [@](#): > > ISAF Headquarters Public Affairs > 2013-03-16 > US Army Staff Sergeant Jerry Griffis > For Immediate Release > > Elders Discuss Future of Ab Band District at Validation Shura > > GHAZNI PROVINCE, Afghanistan (March 16, 2013)– Hundreds of attendees, including over 50 village elders, attended a validation shura in Ab Band district, March 14. > > The validation shura is a formal ceremony to recognize the legitimacy of the Afghan Local Police (ALP) and to validate that they are ready to take control of security in the villages of Ab Band district. > > “The Taliban has led Afghanistan into darkness,” said Brig. Gen. Ali Shah Ahmadzai, the Afghan Local Police Chief for Afghanistan. “The ALP will help to secure our lives and help bring us out of this darkness.”. > > [http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/elders-discuss-future-of-ab-band-district-at-validation-shura.html](http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/elders-discuss-future-of-ab-band-district-at-validation-shura.html) I know there are tough odds to beat out so much evil scum with stolen money and drug money, such as the drug gangs in Wardok Province that may be tied to the Taliban and perhaps even high central government officials, and members of the Karzai family. But there are two years left of major ISAF assistance to the vast majority of Afghans that reject the Taliban and drug gangs and tribal warlords that govern mostly to enrich themselves and not much more. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/142 "2013-03-18T23:25:30Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > In NAM we faced not only a non-uniformed guerilla insurgenc, but we opposed a Regualy Army (ARVN ) that maintained its supplies and and direction and authority from the North Vietnamese Government. I have to say, for someone who’s been going on at length at how interested he is in the subject, that’s a really shocking mistake to make. ARVN(The Army of the Republic of Vietnam) was not “opposed” by the US nor was it affiliated with the North Vietnamese government. It was the Army of the South Vietnamese government(The Republic of Vietnam). In fact, they did most of the fighting and dying, losing around 250,000 people. You might wish to double-check your facts next time. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/143 "2013-03-19T01:02:18Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > [Why the Taliban are so strong](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16851949) -posted and cited #057 by Tagos on 03-11-2013 at 11:07 AM 070a1107 Tagos cited a 13 month old report by BBC reporter named Bilal Sarwary. If you follow the link you will find that the date and name of who wrote it. {cite} Why Taliban are so strong in Afghanistan; By Bilal Sarwary; BBC News, Kabul 2 February 2012 Last updated at 12:33 ET; Many doubt Afghan forces will be able to withstand the Taliban after 2014 {cite} So I decided to check out what Bilal Sarwary might be saying at the present moment at time. I found this on [https://twitter.com/bsarwary:](https://twitter.com/bsarwary:) {cite} Bilal Sarwary‏@bsarwary; \*\*Great article \*\*minister Barmak, Rural Rehabilitation and Development of Afghanistan A New Deal for Afghanistan? : [A New Deal for Afghanistan? | HuffPost The World Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wais-ahmad-barmak/a-new-deal-for-afghanista_b_2885770.html?utm_hp_ref=world) …{cite} Lots of optimism in this commentary by an Afghan official named Wais Ahmad Barmak who is currently serving as Minister, Rural Rehabilitation and Development of Afghanistan. He wrote on March 15, 2003, “A New Deal for Afghanistan?” Here are some excerpts: > [@](#): > > What are the real threats facing the Afghan people as we approach 2014, when international military troops withdraw to their bases or leave the country – and responsibility for security rests wholly with Afghanistan? > > Will Afghan National Security Forces, trained and equipped by the West, defect or melt away? Wais Ahmad Barmak certainly answers those questions: > [@](#): > > In brief, the Taliban cannot win a military battle, nor can they win an electoral one. No one – apart, perhaps, from a few ideological zealots – will want to vote for them. Not the million girls in schools. Not young Afghans who want to achieve more than a subsistence standard of living for themselves and their families. Not shopkeepers who want to expand businesses and to develop their nascent entrepreneurial spirit, but are constrained by a lack of basic infrastructure and outmoded trading policies and practices (which the Government has still to address). And not the thousands of village women joining savings groups for the first time, pooling funds to invest in home-based businesses. > [@](#): > > Though insurgents can disrupt, they cannot wholly destroy the gains of the past decade. And one of the many things naysayers like Tagos pay little attention to was the Conference in Chicago in 2012: > [@](#): > > Last year’s major international conferences in Chicago and Tokyo helped us all move forward. Chicago set a baseline of funding for Afghan National Security Forces and the Government’s recurrent costs. Long-term strategic partnerships cemented with countries such as the US demonstrate to the Afghan people the global community’s commitment to working with Afghanistan in the years ahead, to ensure my country never again becomes a breeding ground or safe haven for terrorists, a threat not just to the region, but the entire world. > > These commitments give Afghans hope in the future, assurance that the world will not abandon Afghanistan again. And they are being agreed in the recognition that, given the ever-changing, multi-faceted nature of international terrorism, the consequences of abandonment could be even more severe than those of the past. So why should we listen to Tagos and John Mace and the many other naysayers here and ignore what Wais Ahmad Barmak and mentioned in Bilal Sarwary’s twitter account? Tagos thinks Bilal Sarwary was a credible reporter on Afghanistan over a year ago. What is he saying now? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/144 "2013-03-19T02:00:06Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The naysayers are losing ground with the Taliban and al Qaeda in the part of the world. Slowley, but steadily. I wasn’t talking about any situation in the Middle East. I was saying I don’t think this thread will ever end. One of us posts five words and you launch a thousand word screed (with date and time). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/145 "2013-03-19T13:00:44Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No, I see that as the targeted best result of the several thugs I am optimistic about. Namely over three million girls in school, some have been in school since 2002. That means there are at least a couple million families that reject the Talban’s extremist ways. > > I see the villagers’ uprisings in the heart of a Taliban former stronghold, as a good trend for long term obstruction against the return of Taliban tyranny over any major populated area. > I see more and more events such as the following as trending mire toward optimism than toward a return to what was. If you confine your optimism entirely to the question of whether the Taliban will return to power, perhaps. If you take a broader view of desiring a stable, democratic, peaceful Afghanistan, there is no cause for optimism. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I know there are tough odds to beat out so much evil scum with stolen money and drug money, such as the drug gangs in Wardok Province that may be tied to the Taliban and perhaps even high central government officials, and members of the Karzai family. But there are two years left of major ISAF assistance to the vast majority of Afghans that reject the Taliban and drug gangs and tribal warlords that govern mostly to enrich themselves and not much more. Isn’t this a contradiction? You claim the vast majority of Afghans reject tribal warlords, while endorsing a model of governance that not only keeps the warlords in power, it grants them official sanction. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/146 "2013-03-19T15:55:59Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Isn’t this a contradiction? You claim the vast majority of Afghans reject tribal warlords, while endorsing a model of governance that not only keeps the warlords in power, it grants them official sanction. Was I was trying to say is that it good that “there are two years left of major ISAF assistance” (to the majority -in some areas - of oppressed villagers and farmers and two years of ISAF assistance to the Afghan security/police forces to enable Afghans) that “reject the Taliban and drug gangs and tribal warlords that govern, (in some areas) mostly to enrich themselves and not much more.” I endorse continued assistance to helping the villagers to rid themselves of the rot in local government and central government that has taken advantage of international assistance from foreign nations to enrich themselves and that includes anything connected to Karzai. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/147 "2013-03-19T16:28:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If you confine your optimism entirely to the question of whether the Taliban will return to power, perhaps. If you take a broader view of desiring a stable, democratic, peaceful Afghanistan, there is no cause for optimism. I’ve never abandoned “desiring a stable, democratic, peaceful Afghanistan.” But as a realist I understand that what you define will take much longer than it will take to ensure that the Taliban do not return to power as they had in 2001. But putting Taliban oppression down is the first step that must be taken in order to rid the Afghan people of the strife and hardship that they have endured rhe past four decades and more. Optimism that the first step is achievable and sustainable is warranted as expressed by Wais Ahmad Barmak cited last night by me: > [@](#): > > In brief, the Taliban cannot win a military battle, nor can they win an electoral one. No one – apart, perhaps, from a few ideological zealots – will want to vote for them. Not the million girls in schools. Not young Afghans who want to achieve more than a subsistence standard of living for themselves and their families. Not shopkeepers who want to expand businesses and to develop their nascent entrepreneurial spirit, but are constrained by a lack of basic infrastructure and outmoded trading policies and practices (which the Government has still to address). And not the thousands of village women joining savings groups for the first time, pooling funds to invest in home-based businesses. The trend is in the right direction to some day see millions of Afghans live in peace with themselves and outsiders. Will it take more than a decade to get there? Surely it will. But the current trends are cause for more optimism than blanket rejection of anything good coming out if what has been a hard struggle for our troops who have served and will serve over there for at least two more years as Afghans continue to transition to the lead. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/148 "2013-03-19T16:52:47Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Was I was trying to say is that it good that “there are two years left of major ISAF assistance” (to the majority -in some areas - of oppressed villagers and farmers and two years of ISAF assistance to the Afghan security/police forces to enable Afghans) that “reject the Taliban and drug gangs and tribal warlords that govern, (in some areas) mostly to enrich themselves and not much more.” > > I endorse continued assistance to helping the villagers to rid themselves of the rot in local government and central government that has taken advantage of international assistance from foreign nations to enrich themselves and that includes anything connected to Karzai. Of course, the fact that this assistance is coming from foreigners as part of the war effort rather wounds its legitimacy and permanence. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I’ve never abandoned “desiring a stable, democratic, peaceful Afghanistan.” But as a realist I understand that what you define will take much longer than it will take to ensure that the Taliban do not return to power as they had in 2001. But putting Taliban oppression down is the first step that must be taken in order to rid the Afghan people of the strife and hardship that they have endured rhe past four decades and more. I can agree with that. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The trend is in the right direction to some day see millions of Afghans live in peace with themselves and outsiders. Will it take more than a decade to get there? Surely it will. > > But the current trends are cause for more optimism than blanket rejection of anything good coming out if what has been a hard struggle for our troops who have served and will serve over there for at least two more years as Afghans continue to transition to the lead. Let’s see how the 2014 election goes before crowing about positive trends and achieving good. The mere fact of being not-the-Taliban doesn’t make Karzai or the warlords worthy rulers capable of what we would call legitimate government. If we see another fraudulent election, I’m ready to write these people off as being totally unready for democracy. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/149 "2013-03-20T12:54:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Of course, the fact that this assistance is coming from foreigners as part of the war effort rather wounds its legitimacy and permanence. Illegitimacy of foreign donations to me happen when corrupt nationals take it for personal and illegitimate use. The NATO coalition is aware of this but must determine that doing much despite a certain degree of corruption is the right policy. Progress has been made where foreign aid gets through quite legitimately and that should be recognized. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I can agree with that. Excellent. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Let’s see how the 2014 election goes before crowing about positive trends and achieving good. The mere fact of being not-the-Taliban doesn’t make Karzai or the warlords worthy rulers capable of what we would call legitimate government. If we see another fraudulent election, I’m ready to write these people off as being totally unready for democracy. Realizing that the insurgents have been pushed out of so much populated areas since the last election was held plus the fact that in most polling areas if not all of next year’s polling places will be guarded by Afghan uniformed faces, is reason to expect thus election to go much better and be more legitimate than 2009. Will the election go perfect? Do ours? I think it is unfair to expect election perfection and it is unwise to wait to apply praise to all those Afghans that gave stepped up to provide security and elections unti after they pull off a very good election. Encouraing the good people of Aghanistan by telling them that thus is what victory looks like ahead of time, is not wrongheaded. They need encouragement to get closer to the goals they and we want. I’m sorry, I see nothing wrong with what General Allen said in the OP. It is based on the reality of the trends on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/150 "2013-03-20T13:37:02Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Illegitimacy of foreign donations to me happen when corrupt nationals take it for personal and illegitimate use. The NATO coalition is aware of this but must determine that doing much despite a certain degree of corruption is the right policy. > > Progress has been made where foreign aid gets through quite legitimately and that should be recognized. I’m not talking about donations; when the incumbent central government only exists because of the military force of a foreign power, that central government will have a major problem with legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Excellent. I don’t think anyone is saying that the demise of the Taliban as an organization wouldn’t be a postive thing, just that it doesn’t necessarily lead to a stable, prosperous Afghanistan. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Realizing that the insurgents have been pushed out of so much populated areas since the last election was held plus the fact that in most polling areas if not all of next year’s polling places will be guarded by Afghan uniformed faces, is reason to expect thus election to go much better and be more legitimate than 2009. Attacks by militants were just part of the problems that made the 2009 election a farce. The problems experienced were exactly what you’d expect to result from a democratic process being imposed on a splintered, tribal people without a democratic tradition: widespread fraud, bribes, selling of votes, election officials campaigning for candidates, the election commission being part of the Karzai government, intimidation and coercion, culminating in the cancellation of the runoff election. Better security will not help when the government that employs the security forces is rigging the election. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Will the election go perfect? Do ours? Yeah, they do. A major reason why is that we developed our system and traditions on our own. If China came in tomorrow, tossed our leaders out of power and imposed their model of government, it wouldn’t take very well either. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I think it is unfair to expect election perfection and it is unwise to wait to apply praise to all those Afghans that gave stepped up to provide security and elections unti after they pull off a very good election. There’s nothing in it for the regime to hold fair elections; they might lose. Bush’s idealism for democracy was probably the wrong approach to Afghanistan, better to install an authoritarian strongman who agreed to confront and destroy anti-American terrorist groups in exchange for money and weapons. It’s a model that worked well during the Cold War. Democracy is not for everyone. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Encouraing the good people of Aghanistan by telling them that thus is what victory looks like ahead of time, is not wrongheaded. > > They need encouragement to get closer to the goals they and we want. > > I’m sorry, I see nothing wrong with what General Allen said in the OP. > > It is based on the reality of the trends on the ground. It’s victory if victory means the Taliban being weakened, and nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/151 "2013-03-20T17:36:47Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’m not talking about donations; when the incumbent central government only exists because of the military force of a foreign power, that central government will have a major problem with legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. > > I don’t think anyone is saying that the demise of the Taliban as an organization wouldn’t be a postive thing, just that it doesn’t necessarily lead to a stable, prosperous Afghanistan. > > Attacks by militants were just part of the problems that made the 2009 election a farce. The problems experienced were exactly what you’d expect to result from a democratic process being imposed on a splintered, tribal people without a democratic tradition: widespread fraud, bribes, selling of votes, election officials campaigning for candidates, the election commission being part of the Karzai government, intimidation and coercion, culminating in the cancellation of the runoff election. > > Better security will not help when the government that employs the security forces is rigging the election. > > Yeah, they do. A major reason why is that we developed our system and traditions on our own. If China came in tomorrow, tossed our leaders out of power and imposed their model of government, it wouldn’t take very well either. > > There’s nothing in it for the regime to hold fair elections; they might lose. Bush’s idealism for democracy was probably the wrong approach to Afghanistan, better to install an authoritarian strongman who agreed to confront and destroy anti-American terrorist groups in exchange for money and weapons. It’s a model that worked well during the Cold War. Democracy is not for everyone. > > It’s victory if victory means the Taliban being weakened, and nothing else. Karzai’s opponent for the Presidency in 2009 I believe would disagree with your lack of faith in the people of Afghanistan. > [@](#): > > With a push from the international community, and in particular, the United States, to help Afghanistan conduct free and fair elections, Afghanistan can be saved – and move into the next decade from a position of strength. Together with our international partners, the Afghan nation has come a long way in our transition toward democracy and stability. We must march on forward. -excerpt from “Saving Afghanistan”; BY ABDULLAH ABDULLAH | JANUARY 8, 2013. More from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. > [@](#): > > Instead of abandoning democracy because it hasn’t worked under a kleptocracy, Afghanistan and the international community must clean it up.[/Instead of abandoning democracy because it hasn’t worked under a kleptocracy, Afghanistan and the international community must clean it up. > > Can this be done in just over a year? Yes. I hope you would read the entire commentary to better understand what I am saying. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/152 "2013-03-20T18:39:55Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Karzai’s opponent for the Presidency in 2009 I believe would disagree with your lack of faith in the people of Afghanistan. > > More from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. > > I hope you would read the entire commentary to better understand what I am saying. I did. Dr. Abdullah thinks democracy can take root in Afghanistan, starting in 2014. I hope he’s right, but the evidence is rather thin. His plan calls for a great deal of foreign involvement in the election, at a time when the U.S. is minimizing that involvement. He speaks highly of credible and transparent elections, while the plan that you yourself endorse as the most likely to work involves investing political power in non-elected warlords and elders. The sort of problems Afghanistan faces are typical of the undeveloped world, though they have cultural and geographical factors, as well as a drug trade, that make theirs more onerous. Foreign powers haven’t made much headway against these problems elsewhere, so what cause is there to believe that Afghanistan is on the brink of transformation into even a halfway decent place to live? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/153 "2013-03-20T23:50:13Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > "He {Abdullah Abdullah}speaks highly of credible and transparent elections, while the plan that you yourself endorse as the most likely to work involves investing political power in non-elected warlords and elders. Today, 02:39 PM You are saying that, I endorsed “investing political power in non-elected warlords and elders.” And that was written, when? where? I have written here that I endorse investing political power in the people, who are fed up with the Islamic Extremists and the kleptocrats Yesterday 12:52 PM I wrote: "What I was trying to say is that it good that “there are two years left of major ISAF assistance” (to the majority -in some areas - of oppressed villagers and farmers and two years of ISAF assistance to the Afghan security/police forces to enable Afghans) that “reject the Taliban and drug gangs and tribal warlords that govern, (in some areas) mostly to enrich themselves and not much more.” \*\*I endorse continued assistance to helping the villagers to rid themselves of the rot in local government and central government \*\*that has taken advantage of international assistance from foreign nations to enrich themselves and that includes anything connected to Karzai. Why must I continuously defend against something that I did not write? I endorse exactly what I posted from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah said in January this year: [QUOTEInstead of abandoning democracy because it hasn’t worked under a kleptocracy, Afghanistan and the international community must clean it up] [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/154 "2013-03-21T01:18:24Z")
[quote=“Human\_Action, post:152, topic:652554”] Dr. Abdullah thinks democracy can take root in Afghanistan, starting in 2014. I hope he’s right, but the evidence is rather thin. His plan calls for a great deal of foreign involvement in the election, at a time when the U.S. is minimizing that involvement. QUOTE] Human Action writes: > [@](#): > > at a time when \*\*the U.S. is minimizing \*\*that involvement. I am not sure what the basis for that claim is, unless you meant military assistance, which is a good thing that military combat operations by foreigners is in decline. Perhaps you have a source on it? Here’s a source from our former Secretary of State as she spoke in Tokyo where $16 billion was pledged. > [@](#): > > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave these remarks at the Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan on July 8, 2012. > > As Afghans do their part, the international community must do ours, by making concrete pledges of economic support to ensure that Afghanistan meets its fiscal needs in the critical post-transition period. > > I am very pleased that Prime Minister Noda has confirmed that $16 billion is available from the international community through 2015. This is sustained economic support that will help Afghanistan meet its fiscal needs even as assistance declines. The United States will request from our Congress assistance for Afghanistan at or near the levels of the past decade through the year 2017. And our assistance will create incentives to help the Afghan Government meet mutually agreed reform goals. > [http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/clintons-....uly-2012/p28671](http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/clintons-....uly-2012/p28671) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/155 "2013-03-21T12:12:14Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are saying that, I endorsed “investing political power in non-elected warlords and elders.” And that was written, when? where? > > I have written here that I endorse investing political power in the people, who are fed up with the Islamic Extremists and the kleptocrats Post 102. What do you understand hybrid governance to mean, exactly? Because your cite describes it as: > [@](#): > > The experience of Afghanistan and many other states as well as the limited resources available for international state-building efforts suggest that for many historically weak states, a hybrid model of governance that draws on a mix of formal institutions and informal power may be the only viable one. The relative success of the model in some parts of the country demonstrates that the choice in Afghanistan need not be between building a representative, democratic state and allowing anarchic tribalism to take hold. While less than optimal, the hybrid model has proven that it can deliver some goods and services to the population, the central government, and the international community. Given Afghanistan’s history of weak central power and its limited resources, the form of governance represented by warlord-governors may be the best compromise at present in Afghanistan. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Yesterday 12:52 PM I wrote: "What I was trying to say is that it good that “there are two years left of major ISAF assistance” (to the majority -in some areas - of oppressed villagers and farmers and two years of ISAF assistance to the Afghan security/police forces to enable Afghans) that “reject the Taliban and drug gangs and tribal warlords that govern, (in some areas) mostly to enrich themselves and not much more.” > > \*\*I endorse continued assistance to helping the villagers to rid themselves of the rot in local government and central government \*\*that has taken advantage of international assistance from foreign nations to enrich themselves and that includes anything connected to Karzai. And how far are you willing to go with this assistance? If the 2014 election is a fraud too, do we forcibly topple the regime that claims power and install a new one? If assistance is just money, there’s not all that much that can be accomplished. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I endorse exactly what I posted from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah said in January this year: > > [QUOTEInstead of abandoning democracy because it hasn’t worked under a kleptocracy, Afghanistan and the international community must clean it up] Does Dr. Abdullah endorse hybrid governance as well? Because that model is only kinda-sorta democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/156 "2013-03-21T12:19:20Z")
[quote=“NotfooledbyW, post:154, topic:652554”] > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Dr. Abdullah thinks democracy can take root in Afghanistan, starting in 2014. I hope he’s right, but the evidence is rather thin. His plan calls for a great deal of foreign involvement in the election, at a time when the U.S. is minimizing that involvement. QUOTE] > > Human Action writes: > > I am not sure what the basis for that claim is, unless you meant military assistance, which is a good thing that military combat operations by foreigners is in decline. > > Perhaps you have a source on it? Here’s a source from our former Secretary of State as she spoke in Tokyo where $16 billion was pledged. I need a source for the claim that we’re leaving Afghanistan by 2014? Um, [ok.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_afghanistan#2013:_Withdrawal) If infusions of cash were sufficient to end corruption, establish democracy, and build peaceful nations, the world would be a paradise by now. Dr. Abdullah was specifically asking for foreign involvement in the next election; sending more money to the Karzai regime is **not** what he was asking for. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/157 "2013-03-21T15:13:51Z")
[quote=“Human\_Action, post:156, topic:652554”] > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I need a source for the claim that we’re leaving Afghanistan by 2014? Um, [ok.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_afghanistan#2013:_Withdrawal) So you do not have a source for your claim in your pattern of facts that the US and others are minimizing funding for the post transition period that we are entering? Why do you need a source for a claim that we are leaving in 2014. I am not claiming that we are. Obama signed a strategic Alliance with Afghanistan last May that runs through 2024 including military assistance and training. If you could clarify why you need a source that we are leaving by 2014, I would appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/158 "2013-03-21T15:38:24Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So you do not have a source for your claim in your pattern of facts that the US and others are minimizing funding for the post transition period that we are entering? Do what now? I never mentioned funding, that’s your baby. $16 billion is a fraction of a drop in the bucket of the federal budget, and dollars don’t come back in caskets, so I’m sure we’ll throw dollars at the Afghan government until they collapse or become intolerably authoritarian and/or corrupt. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Why do you need a source for a claim that we are leaving in 2014. I am not claiming that we are. Obama signed a strategic Alliance with Afghanistan last May that runs through 2024 including military assistance and training. > > If you could clarify why you need a source that we are leaving by 2014, I would appreciate it. Not every single American will be leaving, no. But the large majority of our combat forces are; the remainder will train Afghan troops in how to not shoot Americans and police in how to not demand bribes, until the government collapses or the U.S. switches back from a “support” mission to a "combat’ one. Again, from Dr. Abdullah’s piece that you brought up: > [@](#): > > Because of these countless psychological and structural missteps, influential, democratically minded Afghans – and those who support them – must focus more sharply on a political transition, without which any “military transition” will ultimately be meaningless. And for a successful political transition, Afghanistan needs every country involved in its rebuilding effort to send a clear message to today’s Afghan leadership demanding a democratic transition of power based on the principles of free and fair elections. Instead of abandoning democracy because it hasn’t worked under a kleptocracy, Afghanistan and the international community must clean it up. > > Can this be done in just over a year? Yes. The time until the 2014 elections must be used to implement procedures that support democracy. Our international partners, in particular the United States, should ensure the positioning of foreign observers to keep a clean tally of the votes. Karzai and the Afghan parliament should approve new voter registration procedures to ensure that every voter’s voice – new and old – is heard. Our parliament needs to mandate the vetting of all election officials who will oversee election centers, rather than accepting them as a result of presidential decree, as they are now. There needs to be an independent body to resolve all electoral disputes – an independent Electoral Complaints Commission whose members are selected transparently and with meaningful consultations among Afghan political opposition groups, parliament, civil society, and others. > [@](#): > > With a push from the international community, and in particular, the United States, to help Afghanistan conduct free and fair elections, Afghanistan can be saved – and move into the next decade from a position of strength. None of that can be achieved by the U.S. throwing money at it, or by stationing 6,000 troops in Afghanistan for training. He wants the U.S. on the ground supervising this election and pressuring the Karzai regime, and that’s just not going to happen, because by 2014 our ground presence will be minimal. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/159 "2013-03-21T15:46:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Human Action #155 Today, 08:12 AM: (see) Post 102. What do you understand hybrid governance to mean, exactly? Because your cite describes it as: > > “The experience of Afghanistan and many other states as well as the limited resources available for international state-building efforts suggest that for many historically weak states, a hybrid model of governance that draws on a mix of formal institutions and informal power may be the only viable one. The relative success of the model in some parts of the country demonstrates that the choice in Afghanistan need not be between building a representative, democratic state and allowing anarchic tribalism to take hold. model in some parts of the country demonstrates that the choice in Afghanistan need not be between building a representative, democratic state and allowing anarchic tribalism to take hold. While less than optimal, the hybrid model has proven that it can deliver some goods and services to the population, the central government, and the international community. Given Afghanistan’s history of weak central power and its limited resources, the form of governance represented by warlord-governors may be the best compromise at present in Afghanistan.” You need to consider a very pertinent second sentence from the paragraphs that were cited in your response. “The relative **success** of the model in **some parts** of the country demonstrates that the choice in Afghanistan need not be between building a representative, democratic state and allowing anarchic tribalism to take hold.” They are pointing to “successful models in parts of Afghanistan” which are not the parts where Warlord/Governors are corrupt, stealing from the people, harboring insurgents bent on destroying the Central Government where it works, and harboring drug gangs and criminals, in the name of anarchic Islamist extremist rule. (Where ‘success’ is evident) is a key word in that portion of the Hybrid Governance study that I cited in Post #102. Does that clarify things for you? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/160 "2013-03-21T16:15:31Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You need to consider a very pertinent second sentence from the paragraphs that were cited in your response. > > “The relative **success** of the model in **some parts** of the country demonstrates that the choice in Afghanistan need not be between building a representative, democratic state and allowing anarchic tribalism to take hold.” > > They are pointing to “successful models in parts of Afghanistan” which are not the parts where Warlord/Governors are corrupt, stealing from the people, harboring insurgents bent on destroying the Central Government where it works, and harboring drug gangs and criminals, in the name of anarchic Islamist extremist rule. > > (Where ‘success’ is evident) is a key word in that portion of the Hybrid Governance study that I cited in Post #102. > > Does that clarify things for you? 1. The essay hinges on a whopping **two** warlords turned governors, Atta Mohammad Noor and Gul Agha Sherzai, who haven’t been appalling monsters since joining the Karzai administration, though they are, of course, unelected appointees. They figured Karzai would prevail, so they joined him. We aren’t dealing with Washington and Jefferson here. 2. Of course government works best when the governors are not corrupt, don’t steal, fight amongst themselves, and harbor drug traffickers. That’s no revelation. However, the warlords and insurgents have incentives in place that drive them to act the way that they do, and so do the people that support those warlords and insurgents. THAT is a hurdle Afghanistan will have a difficult time clearing in our lifetimes. 3. Look at the case of [Ismail Khan.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Khan#Controversy). He was appointed governor of Herat. But then… > [@](#): > > As Emir of Herat, Ismail Khan exercised great autonomy, providing social welfare for Heratis, expanding his power into neighbouring provinces, and maintaining direct international contacts. Although hated by the educated in Herat and often accused of human rights abuses, Ismail Khan’s regime provided security, paid government employees, and made investments in public services. However, during his tenure as Governor, Ismail Khan was accused of ruling his province like a private fiefdom, leading to increasing tensions with the Afghan Transitional Administration. In particular, he refused to pass on to the government the revenues gained from custom taxes on goods from Iran and Turkmenistan. > [@](#): > > After the fall of the Taliban when Ismail Khan regained control of Herat, he established an Islamic police, who would beat anyone who was found drinking and then parade them through the city with their heads shaved. Ultimately, Khan was removed from the governorship in 2004. _But he remains a popular figure in Aghanistan, especially in Herat_. When U.S. forces are largely gone, rulers like Khan will refuse to surrender, and they will have the popular support of their people, who want Islamic police and a ruler who spends tax money on them instead of sending it to Kabul to be embezzled. The central government will get weaker and weaker, unless the U.S. intervenes again, and I don’t think we will. “Hybrid governance” may work fine if all warlords were cooperative and patriotic, but they are not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554.md?page=9)