Thoughts on Afghanistan

[AZhitman]

I read this short op-ed piece this morning, and it really got me thinking...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo ... 5_ST_N.htm

Have the liberals AND the conservatives both gotten it all wrong?

Can the GOP actually embrace this idea without losing face?

I'm really on the fence with this topic...

[srellim234]

You're equating the GOP and conservative. You are incorrect.

The GOP could not embrace it and save face. The GOP's goal is to provide companies and cronies with as much money as it can; the cost in American lives and taxpayers' money doesn't matter. Democrats can't embrace it unless it is accompanied by spending the money here to enrichen companies and cronies; they have no intention of using it as any part of deficit reduction or balancing the budget.

Liberals and conservatives can embrace it. Democrats and Republicans can't.

[mattblancarte]

Have the liberals AND the conservatives both gotten it all wrong?

Yes, absolutely. To top off our own death toll and those who have tried to tame the theater in the past, we've got almost 10x the number of WIA. Not to mention the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead or wounded civilians.


The problem with nation building in Afghanistan is that we're dealing with a literacy rate of about 25%.

These people don't reason like we do, they don't think for themselves. They listen to their mullahs and the Qur’an. That's it.

How on earth can we win over the hearts and minds of a people when we represent all that is evil to their religion (majority of coalition states are infidel states)? It's the same problem for everyone who tries.

[mattblancarte]

Most of us across the USA agree that the Afghanistan war was necessary when President George W. Bush went after Osama bin Laden and his gang following 9/11.

I'm sorry, but I can't even come close to giving GWB credit for anything positive in Afghanistan. He waited too long, and then basically under-funded and under-supplied the people chasing Osama. That's a failure.

[AZhitman]

You're equating the GOP and conservative. You are incorrect.

Um, I can't get past your first sentence.

First, how can I be "incorrect" when I haven't stated a position? And where did I equate GOP and Conservative? I should know (since I'm one and not the other).

Ease up there, Cochise.

[AZhitman]

I'm sorry, but I can't even come close to giving GWB credit for anything positive in Afghanistan. He waited too long, and then basically under-funded and under-supplied the people chasing Osama. That's a failure.

All good, but we're not going down that road. I'm talking about from this day forth. What should our position on Afghanistan be, in the Petraeus era?

[srellim234]

You're equating the GOP and conservative. You are incorrect.

Um, I can't get past your first sentence.

My fault for making that bridge. Too many people I come in contact with still believe that GOP= conservative and Democrat=liberal. You have my apology for that statement.

I'm interested in your thoughts about the rest of what I said.

[AZhitman]

The GOP could not embrace it and save face. The GOP's goal is to provide companies and cronies with as much money as it can; the cost in American lives and taxpayers' money doesn't matter. Democrats can't embrace it unless it is accompanied by spending the money here to enrichen companies and cronies; they have no intention of using it as any part of deficit reduction or balancing the budget.

Liberals and conservatives can embrace it. Democrats and Republicans can't.

I sat here and started drafting an eloquent "devil's advocate" response, wherein I point out that you're overgeneralizing, that's old-school thinking, things have changed, etc...

Then I deleted it.

Sadly, you're right.

[mattblancarte]

Indeed, I didn't mean to direct the convo in that direction. The urge to point out that bit in Al's piece was too strong.

We need to minimize our armed forces' ground presence in that theater, and allow Afghanistan to develop on their own. Providing aid in terms of business, advisement, diplomacy, etc. couldn't hurt.

[szh]

Providing aid in terms of business, advisement, diplomacy, etc. couldn't hurt.

Wish we could have done this the previous time we meddled there ... "Charlie Wilson's War" is a brilliant movie that shows exactly what we did wrong at the end of that effort.

That would have prevented the Taliban from gaining any ground after the Russians left.

Z

[BusyBadger]

Providing aid in terms of business, advisement, diplomacy, etc. couldn't hurt.

Wish we could have done this the previous time we meddled there ... "Charlie Wilson's War" is a brilliant movie that shows exactly what we did wrong at the end of that effort.

That would have prevented the Taliban from gaining any ground after the Russians left.

Z

This.

America's best chance to make a permanent & lasting change in Afghanistan was following the withdraw of the Soviets in 1989.

At bargain basement prices too, not evern counting the ZERO loss of life factor. We could have used a variation of the Pottery Barn Rule and in this case, " you broke it, we bought it". And we would have done it spending far less money repairing the country than we ever did when we were arming the Mujahideen.

Like Charlie Wilson said, "We f*** up the endgame."

[stebo0728]

My opinion - and its religious in nature - This region will NEVER see true and lasting peace. Its nice to try, and it makes us feel better for them when we attempt to help, but no matter what we do over there, that entire region, and including Israel, will never see a true and lasting peace.

[IBCoupe]

Afghanistan was always more easily justified than Iraq, in my mind.

It wasn't so much that we need to pay back Osama or punish countries that don't pursue them. For me, it's about creating a, dare I say, more civilized world where a country actually controls the military actions launched from within its borders.

If there's an objective to strive towards, that's the one we should have. I don't care if Afghanistan likes us. I don't care if they see us as Satan incarnate, just so long as the only military strikes that come out of Kabul are sanctioned and directed by the government. Does that mean that we create a democracy? Not necessarily. Does that mean that we install US-friendly leaders? Not necessarily. Heck, from a purely cynical point of view, it could mean that we could help al-Qaeda rise to actual power.

Whatever way we choose to do it, I think that should be our number-one goal: making an Afghanistan that will act and react on the international stage in predictable, logical ways. A country that doesn't isn't good for anyone; just look at North Korea.

Ironically, North Korea's unpredictability is the product of its government, so I guess that about wraps that theory up. Anyways, it's the ideal I'd like to see furthered.

[AZhitman]

Solid as always.

[IBCoupe]

Spoilers ahead, so don't quote this post, you guys.

In looking at back my post, with my avatar in mind, my words become a bit more sinister-looking. In Firefly, Blue Sun was the ever-present corporatocracy that accidentally created the Reavers by trying to make people more docile and also probably had a hand in making River the way she was, namely a child-super-soldier.

Said Mal in the movie Serenity, "Someday they're going to come back around to the idea that they can make people better."

[bigbadberry3]

What if we relocated the troops from Afghanistan to the US/Mexico border?

[mattblancarte]

IBCoupe... most of the time I jive well with your sentiments and logic. I feel compelled to politely challenge your thinking this time, though.

Afghanistan was always more easily justified than Iraq, in my mind.

The brush-stroke here feels too broad (i.e., a lack of distinction for strategies regarding "Afghanistan" and "Iraq"). Our original goal for Afghanistan was to catch OBL. We're now talking about nation building. I'm rarely on board with nation building, especially when we're talking about large-scale armed occupation to achieve that goal.

I'm much more likely to be on board when we're talking about economic improvements or aid to civil infrastructure.

It wasn't so much that we need to pay back Osama or punish countries that don't pursue them. For me, it's about creating a, dare I say, more civilized world where a country actually controls the military actions launched from within its borders.

So you're saying that had this whole scenario occurred sans Osama Bin Laden's involvement, our occupation of Afghanistan would still be warranted? In particular, motivated by the need for nation building?

Or, are you saying that a "9/11 catalyst" is a necessary beginning to the broad process of nation building?

In this civilized world of yours, do violent and deadly military occupations of non-conformist nations fit in?

I don't care if Afghanistan likes us. I don't care if they see us as Satan incarnate, just so long as the only military strikes that come out of Kabul are sanctioned and directed by the government. Does that mean that we create a democracy? Not necessarily. Does that mean that we install US-friendly leaders? Not necessarily. Heck, from a purely cynical point of view, it could mean that we could help al-Qaeda rise to actual power.

Surely you say these things as "tall talk." If you don't care about the hearts and minds of Afghanistan's citizens, why bother nation building in the first place?

If they see us as "Satan incarnate," which they literally do, they are motivated to engage in combat with us. It would be in their nation's interest to defend themselves (violently) against us! You are basically justifying the current actions of insurgents and the Taliban with this logic.

Nation building would be inherently impossible, as the citizens would deny you from the get-go. My logic mirrors our current reality.

In regards to installing leaders... that is what got us into the ridiculous diplomatic mess with Iran.

It absolutely matters if the people of the world like us (and those in Afghanistan), whether you like it or not. It's one of the foundations of human cooperation.

Want them to like us, but don't want to change our ways? Lets do business with them, and create and economic partnership in which win-win can occur. Profitable economic relations can diffuse even the most heightened moments of diplomatic tension.

Whatever way we choose to do it, I think that should be our number-one goal: making an Afghanistan that will act and react on the international stage in predictable, logical ways. A country that doesn't isn't good for anyone; just look at North Korea.

What you're proposing is that we achieve a global government in which all nations abide by rules set by the collective. A UN in which you cannot opt-out. Predictability in logic can only occur when nations are bound by economics and a system of subordination.

I think that we are facing a crisis of global and regional development, in which the western-capitalist world is making an attempt to co-exist with other humans and nations that are centuries behind in terms of government, human rights, education, etc.

If we look at the similarities between nations such as modern North Korea and Afghanistan, the most relevant mirroring that comes to mind is faith-based education and incompetency in general.

"Normal Joe's" in both nations are clueless and incapable of exercising the basic freedoms that we take for granted.

I have no clue how to fix this problem. Some of the things I've suggested can begin to heal wounds, though.

[stebo0728]

Want them to like us, but don't want to change our ways? Lets do business with them, and create and economic partnership in which win-win can occur. Profitable economic relations can diffuse even the most heightened moments of diplomatic tension.

Thats not capitalism I hear in your voice is it? Shame shame ...

[stebo0728]

In looking at back my post, with my avatar in mind, my words become a bit more sinister-looking. In Firefly, Blue Sun was the ever-present corporatocracy that accidentally created the Reavers by trying to make people more docile and also probably had a hand in making River the way she was, namely a child-super-soldier.

Aint that the golram truth!

[IBCoupe]

The brush-stroke here feels too broad (i.e., a lack of distinction for strategies regarding "Afghanistan" and "Iraq"). Our original goal for Afghanistan was to catch OBL. We're now talking about nation building. I'm rarely on board with nation building, especially when we're talking about large-scale armed occupation to achieve that goal.

I'm much more likely to be on board when we're talking about economic improvements or aid to civil infrastructure.

As I recall it, our justification for invading Afghanistan was a bit more nuanced: they weren't handing Bin Laden over to us, or weren't doing it fast enough to our liking. That might be a little nitpicky as far as distinctions go, but I do think it's worth noting.

And I'd like to point out that I'm a bit callous here - I'm not too concerned with nation building. I don't want to help Afghanistan; my primary goal is to make an Afghanistan that isn't a flailing toddler. Sure, if we were to leave now, they'd probably just throw a tantrum and couldn't likely do a lot of damage to us... but there is the off chance that they'll get lucky and smack us in the balls.

So you're saying that had this whole scenario occurred sans Osama Bin Laden's involvement, our occupation of Afghanistan would still be warranted? In particular, motivated by the need for nation building?

Or, are you saying that a "9/11 catalyst" is a necessary beginning to the broad process of nation building?

In this civilized world of yours, do violent and deadly military occupations of non-conformist nations fit in?

I'll refer you to my last paragraph. I'm not looking to build up Afghanistan for the sake of building up Afghanistan. I think that the 9/11 was a catalyst towards creating a stable Afghanistan in the same way that a knocked over priceless vase is a catalyst towards hiding the china when children come over.

Surely you say these things as "tall talk." If you don't care about the hearts and minds of Afghanistan's citizens, why bother nation building in the first place?

If they see us as "Satan incarnate," which they literally do, they are motivated to engage in combat with us. It would be in their nation's interest to defend themselves (violently) against us! You are basically justifying the current actions of insurgents and the Taliban with this logic.

Nation building would be inherently impossible, as the citizens would deny you from the get-go. My logic mirrors our current reality.

In regards to installing leaders... that is what got us into the ridiculous diplomatic mess with Iran.

It absolutely matters if the people of the world like us (and those in Afghanistan), whether you like it or not. It's one of the foundations of human cooperation.

Want them to like us, but don't want to change our ways? Lets do business with them, and create and economic partnership in which win-win can occur. Profitable economic relations can diffuse even the most heightened moments of diplomatic tension.

I'm seeing no pressing reason for cooperation with Afghanistan, except maybe the mineral deposits that were recently discovered. Once more, it's not Afghanistan I'm concerned about. I want to build up an Afghanistan that can control itself, so that its uncontrolled portions stop attacking us. If that means it still, as a self-controlled nation, decides to pick a fight, let that be their funeral.

What you're proposing is that we achieve a global government in which all nations abide by rules set by the collective. A UN in which you cannot opt-out. Predictability in logic can only occur when nations are bound by economics and a system of subordination.

I think that we are facing a crisis of global and regional development, in which the western-capitalist world is making an attempt to co-exist with other humans and nations that are centuries behind in terms of government, human rights, education, etc.

If we look at the similarities between nations such as modern North Korea and Afghanistan, the most relevant mirroring that comes to mind is faith-based education and incompetency in general.

"Normal Joe's" in both nations are clueless and incapable of exercising the basic freedoms that we take for granted.

I have no clue how to fix this problem. Some of the things I've suggested can begin to heal wounds, though.

I'm perfectly content with an organized Afghanistan that decides it doesn't want to abide by our rules. If it wants to lob a few cruise missiles towards our carrier fleets, let them try. But what's important is that we get back to responding against state powers, rather than against civilian powers that are beyond the reach of their repsective states.

And that's the point where we begin to fight the was we were meant to fight. The wars that don't make us look like the bad guys from the get go. The wars that don't have us targetting civilians as our primary goal.

This whole shpiel of mine might sound a bit Machiavellian, but I'm okay with it. I'm just tired of "police actions," and of the nation-building efforts you suggest I support. That's not what the military's for.

[bigbadberry3]

Give all the troops some shovels and start diggin up the mineral resources we just found and book it when they run out. It wasn't like the country was a tier 1 country before the war, we aren't rebuilding a country, we are building a country and failing badly at that. Why spend lives and money when the resources could be better spent in other places? I don't think a surge of troops will change all that much after 8 years of fighting. I heard today that this is the longest period of time the US has spent engaged in a war with a country today and that surprised and saddened me.

[AZhitman]

As a conservative, I'm a tiny bit embarrassed to say that I think it's time to walk away.

Here's why: When we've got the leader of Afghanistan negotiating with the very people we're fighting, it's time for us to say, "F*** IT. YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN."

Either WE negotiate with the Taliban, or we kill them. There's no third option. PERIOD.

[IBCoupe]

On the other hand, Greg, even members of Saddam's Baath party needed to be brought into the fold in Iraq.

[bigbadberry3]

As a conservative, I'm a tiny bit embarrassed to say that I think it's time to walk away.

I don't think it matters if your conservative here, we're all from the USA and it's a black eye for all Americans when we don't succeed.

[AZhitman]

On the other hand, Greg, even members of Saddam's Baath party needed to be brought into the fold in Iraq.

Agreed 100%. But it'd have been the UN (which I should really just designate as us) bringing them to the table. NOT the country's "leadership" working side deals while our troops fight and die.

[AZhitman]

As a conservative, I'm a tiny bit embarrassed to say that I think it's time to walk away.

I don't think it matters if your conservative here, we're all from the USA and it's a black eye for all Americans when we don't succeed.

You're totally correct... I'm just envisioning the political maneuvering that'll inevitably delay / prevent my scenario, and it's disheartening.

[mattblancarte]

Indeed, indeed. Political maneuvering has already begun, as Michael Steele denounced the war effort.

[mattblancarte]

And I'd like to point out that I'm a bit callous here - I'm not too concerned with nation building. I don't want to help Afghanistan; my primary goal is to make an Afghanistan that isn't a flailing toddler. Sure, if we were to leave now, they'd probably just throw a tantrum and couldn't likely do a lot of damage to us... but there is the off chance that they'll get lucky and smack us in the balls.

Agreed, I have no interest in Afghanistan's reconstruction, per se. I would love to see some healthy trading come from that region (aside from the illegal drug trade). Perhaps the major cache of valuable minerals can provide us a foundation for strong economic ties with whoever wins their latest civil war.

I'll refer you to my last paragraph. I'm not looking to build up Afghanistan for the sake of building up Afghanistan. I think that the 9/11 was a catalyst towards creating a stable Afghanistan in the same way that a knocked over priceless vase is a catalyst towards hiding the china when children come over.

I understand where you're coming from, and I wish that our leadership at the time pursued Afghanistan as a nation when the timing made sense. We're tired occupiers of an uncivilized desert, now.

Afghanistan was pretty much Osama's "Kinder Care" at the time the priceless vase was knocked over. We should have sent him to permanent detention, but he was able to hide in the big tires on the playground. Eventually, after being effectively evaded and humiliated, our morbidly obese "duties" ran out of gas, and decided to go after kids in an entirely different day care.

I'm seeing no pressing reason for cooperation with Afghanistan, except maybe the mineral deposits that were recently discovered.

Gimme the dough, indeed. Right there with you on that one.

I'm perfectly content with an organized Afghanistan that decides it doesn't want to abide by our rules. If it wants to lob a few cruise missiles towards our carrier fleets, let them try. But what's important is that we get back to responding against state powers, rather than against civilian powers that are beyond the reach of their repsective states.

And that's the point where we begin to fight the was we were meant to fight. The wars that don't make us look like the bad guys from the get go. The wars that don't have us targetting civilians as our primary goal.

This whole shpiel of mine might sound a bit Machiavellian, but I'm okay with it. I'm just tired of "police actions," and of the nation-building efforts you suggest I support. That's not what the military's for.

Agreed. Our time spent as occupiers in Afghanistan has clearly done more harm than good for almost all parties involved.

A more noble cause should be found to fight. If no fighting is needed, let peace reign. Unfortunately, as long as scarcity exists, so will conflict and war.

[AZhitman]

We're gonna need those troops if stuff continues as it has lately on my state's southern border.

In all seriousness, s*** is getting sketchy.

Anyhow, back on topic. I'm in agreement with you guys on this thread... I've always thought a little more Isolationism (coupled with occasional fits of Imperialism) would do the US some good.

[WDRacing]

I was going to type out a long explanation of my thoughts...but deleted it to many times.

We have no attainable goals. The "war" isn't winnable. It costs us lives and $$ we don't have. In closing, WTF are we doing over there? We're f*** around and f*** around and f*** around. We're almost at 10 god damn years..there's no excuse for that...none.

Bring the troops home now, leaving them there fighting is doing absolutely ZERO. Unless the goal is to stay there forever, because if you're not staying there forever the second we leave things will go right back to the way they were. Which equals wasting billions of dollars and American lives in trade for nothing. I mean...when are we going to ask WTF?

Operation Goat f***.