Bizarre turn of events in Afghanistan

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_...WZnaGFuZWxlY3Rp

 

So now Karzai stealing the election is a good thing?

[Killian Kalthorne]

The whole point to invade Afghanistan was to kill Osama Bin Ladin. That point is now moot since Bush blew that chance. It is time to leave.

[Hurlshort]

The whole point to invade Afghanistan was to kill Osama Bin Ladin. That point is now moot since Bush blew that chance. It is time to leave.

 

That really wasn't the point.

[Aristes]

The Afghan war was a mess from very early on and it is now a mess. I won't say that I think Obama is handling it well, but it was going to be a hard row to hoe no matter what. Bush pursued an Iraq first policy and, hopefully, that country has a chance of creating a viable democracy. It is probably prohibitively expensive for any foreign power to create a strong and lasting central authority in Afghanistan, let alone a democracy. That doesn't mean that Afghanis are genetically unsuited for democracy, only that it is a long and difficult process to create a democracy and it's even harder when there's no political cohesion or even national identity.

[213374U]

I bet Brezhnev is laughing pretty hard from his tomb.

[Hurlshort]

I think it is important to keep in mind that the Taliban, and many of the groups causing violence in Afghanistan, are not even Afghani. I'm very proud of the goal in Afghanistan, to create an Afghan-led government, and I'm glad the US is involved in it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Right, but now we have to back the guy who stole the election while complaining that the same thing happened in Iran, not that Obama complained much.

[lord of flies]

I think it is important to keep in mind that the Taliban, and many of the groups causing violence in Afghanistan, are not even Afghani. I'm very proud of the goal in Afghanistan, to create an Afghan-led government, and I'm glad the US is involved in it.

This is not, and has never been, the goal of the United States in Afghanistan. Our causus belli was, no doubt, the destruction or removal of al-Qaeda. The Taliban was in fact an "Afghan-led government" (unless you don't think Pashtuns are Afghanis) but that statement is meaningless anyway. Al-Qaeda is not Afghani, but allow me to outline a two-step plan to remove al-Qaeda from Afghanistan:

• Ally with the Taliban against al-Qaeda.
  
• You're ****ing done. Get out now.
  

So what is the point? Well, Karzai's gang of thugs shows it's not to create a functional democracy. Do we really just hate that little autarky, the Taliban? Plausible, I suppose. We have a deep-seated distaste for them worldwide (e.g. North Korea), which has little or nothing to do with rational geopolitics. Attributing a motivation to that, of course, is more difficult; personally, I'd attribute it to the old western gunboat diplomacy and opening of new markets.

 

What other motivations does the United States have? Well, there is the obvious one... killing people. Perhaps the sole reason our leaders and our people are fighting so hard to make sure that the war keeps going on is simple revenge. We cannot let them get away with what they did, we must destroy their families and homes, et cetera. Revenge mentality and the "Rome Jr." mentality (exemplified by the phrase, "We do [x], but the Romans used to...") have historically combined to create behavior that runs counter to reasonable foreign policy, such as the massive bombing of Cambodia.

 

I can't think of any strategic resources Afghanistan has, and the current regime in Afghanistan has weaker grasp on any claim of "liberal democracy" than the PDPA did on being real Marxists (lol urban proletariat in Afghanistan).

[Walsingham]

What is not a realistic option on either moral or practical grounds is simply up and leaving. Afghanistan isn't some magical fairy land which we can just leave through some stargate. It's the defining task for the age, and will impact hugely on the future of Pakistan and Iran and Central Asia, and by consequence India's teeming millions, not to mention the balance of all the fossil energy in the world.

 

The great difficulty in tackling the Talibs and Al Qaeda is that they are something like an iceberg or weed. Only the expressions of them are human and material. 99% of them is 'submerged' in the realm of the conceptual and political/psychological.It's in people's words, and thoughts. That doesn't mean that it can't be fought, it just means that we need a plan which doesn't rest solely on the poor bloody infantry and sapper engineers getting shot up and shooting people. Which, as I say, is why we need a coherent and energetic approach to working with the Afghans. Something I have yet to see from HM Gov.

 

Karzai is indeed a bit of a problem. In my opinion it's clear that civil reconstruction is the next operational objective to break from the cycle we're in. I don't really see how that can happen when Karzai is discredited, and a number of his friends, relatives and advisers are implicated in drug dealing and general malfeasance.

[213374U]

Which, as I say, is why we need a coherent and energetic approach to working with the Afghans.

Yeah, but what if the good Afghans want you to up and leave? Because if that isn't the case now, it'll be soon enough.

[Walsingham]

Which, as I say, is why we need a coherent and energetic approach to working with the Afghans.

Yeah, but what if the good Afghans want you to up and leave? Because if that isn't the case now, it'll be soon enough.

 

Heh. Well that's the 64,000 dollar question, isn't it? I think that would mean we'd have to leave. So we'd better make sure they don't.

[Hurlshort]

I'm thinking we need to stop worrying about the whole democratic process and elections and just help establish a strong central leadership. I know that runs the risk of just creating a dictatorship, but seriously this whole election stuff is just a mess.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So we're going to be maintaining dictators in power through the use of force? Kind of the opposite of what we always professed, isn't it?

Edited November 2, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

So we're going to be maintaining dictators in power through the use of force? Kind of the opposite of what we always professed, isn't it?

 

That's not quite what I said.

[Rostere]

I don't see how anything's really "bizarre" here. As far as I know, everything that's happened in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion has been boringly predictable and completely in line with everything I know about how the world works.

[Gorgon]

Can't we just assassinate the old maharajah and promote some ambitious fellow who is more understanding of our goals. It's worked reasonably well so far.

[Hurlshort]

I've checked this thread a few times, and somehow I missed LoF's post. I'm not sure if it is senility or self preservation.

[Rosbjerg]

I'm thinking we need to stop worrying about the whole democratic process and elections and just help establish a strong central leadership. I know that runs the risk of just creating a dictatorship, but seriously this whole election stuff is just a mess.

 

This is an interesting point and one I've been thinking about as well.. What if, in the long run, a strong central goverment is more benficial to Afghanistan than an unstable and corrupt democratic one? In a perfect world we could support a reform friendly dictator, a tyrant in the greek sense, to slowly pull the country towards a more free and safe country. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world and a dictator would probably employ methods to keep control we can't live with.

[213374U]

I'm not sure if it is senility or self preservation.

More like moderation.

 

re dictator: yeah, supporting a local tyrant has the advantage that in a few years you can come back and kick his butt if you're feeling like it - all in the name of FREEDOM.

 

 

 

- A martyr for FREEDOM dilligently serving American interests

 

*salutes*

[lord of flies]

What is not a realistic option on either moral or practical grounds is simply up and leaving. Afghanistan isn't some magical fairy land which we can just leave through some stargate. It's the defining task for the age, and will impact hugely on the future of Pakistan and Iran and Central Asia, and by consequence India's teeming millions, not to mention the balance of all the fossil energy in the world.

Nope! We can leave at any time. Incredible, I know; we can just pull out. We have been in Afghanistan for the better part of the decade, and we have made very little progress. We seem to be going quite slow, and this is already going to be a long, drawn out process. Just look at the Russians in Chechnya: it took them fifteen years to get the locals back in line. Do you really want to throw tens of thousands of dead Afghani civilians on the pyre for the next twenty years? Just so we can establish some American client state that'll be collapse before the century's out?

 

I'm thinking we need to stop worrying about the whole democratic process and elections and just help establish a strong central leadership. I know that runs the risk of just creating a dictatorship, but seriously this whole election stuff is just a mess.

I'm sure you would have a wonderful career working for the CIA.

[Walsingham]

What is not a realistic option on either moral or practical grounds is simply up and leaving. Afghanistan isn't some magical fairy land which we can just leave through some stargate. It's the defining task for the age, and will impact hugely on the future of Pakistan and Iran and Central Asia, and by consequence India's teeming millions, not to mention the balance of all the fossil energy in the world.

Nope! We can leave at any time. Incredible, I know; we can just pull out. We have been in Afghanistan for the better part of the decade, and we have made very little progress. We seem to be going quite slow, and this is already going to be a long, drawn out process. Just look at the Russians in Chechnya: it took them fifteen years to get the locals back in line. Do you really want to throw tens of thousands of dead Afghani civilians on the pyre for the next twenty years? Just so we can establish some American client state that'll be collapse before the century's out?

 

 

I know you're a touch last century with the whole communism thing, but if any state lasted until the end of THIS century I'd be damned impressed. Hell, FRANCE can't go 100 years without changing their constitution and allegiance.

 

I'm thinking we need to stop worrying about the whole democratic process and elections and just help establish a strong central leadership. I know that runs the risk of just creating a dictatorship, but seriously this whole election stuff is just a mess.

I'm sure you would have a wonderful career working for the CIA.

 

Afghanistan is totally unsuited in both geography and temperament to a strong centralised state. Nor is it actually suited to being dictated to. This is the fundamental frustration for me. The afghans are natural democrats at the local level. They don't hold votes, but the whole style of local decision making and opinion forming is extremely egalitarian. They may bond strongly to a given leader, but that's only when the leader is resonating with their aims and faiths. They're not docile peasant paddy farmers, they're hard independent hill men.