BF2S Forums Afghanistan

FEOS wrote:

There's a difference between saying "intel failure" and being realistic about what is possible with intel capabilities.

Easy. We emasculated our human intelligence capabilities.

FEOS wrote:

.. define success while you're at it--you surely must know what success is if you know what failure is.

"There can be no government without an army,
No army without money, No money without prosperity,
And no prosperity without justice and good administration."

-Ibn Qutayba, a 9th centry islamic scholar in the "Circle Of Justice" (Daira el-adalah).

FEOS wrote:

That's a circular requirement, because justice and good administration requires government.

FEOS wrote:

Of course there is a government in Afghanistan. The problem is that it is likely the wrong government for that culture...but it's better than the alternative of none at all.

FEOS wrote:

How is it in comparison to what was there before?

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How is it in comparison to what was there before?

The new govt allows them to grow a lot more opium.
Capitalism FTW.

The new government doesn't kill them in the soccer stadium for growing it.

Human decency ftw.

Beduin wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Do you live in Afghanistan?

How is it in comparison to what was there before?

The new law regulates marriage, divorce, and inheritance for the country's Shia population. It includes provisions that require a woman to ask permission to leave the house except on urgent business, a duty to "make herself up" or "dress up" for her husband when demanded, and a duty not to refuse sex when her husband wants it....

The United Nations Development Fund for Women has said it "legalises the rape of a wife by her husband".
Navi Pillay, the United Nations human rights chief in Afghanistan,  has called on the Afghan government to revoke the legislation, saying it is "reminiscent of the decrees made by the Taliban regime".
Under the new measure, Shia women would be banned from working or receiving an education without their husbands' permission, the UN agency said.
They would also be forbidden from leaving their homes except for "legitimate purposes," the agency said.

Power has been shifted a bit. It is not only taliban that has it like before. It is taliban, warlords/clans, opium businessmen and a small corrupted group we call government than has only power inside Kabul.

So..How is it in comparison to what was there before?
More opium and a gas pipeline

Beduin wrote:

Taliban is actually doing much better than ISAF and karzai's administration.

Attitudes towards the Afghan government and the Taliban

According to these polls, the Afghans are generally sceptical about the authority and effectiveness of their own government but have just about kept faith with it and are continuing to do so now. There have always been limits to their patience with the government in Kabul and it has not yet run out, but their support is evidently volatile. On the basis of this series of surveys it seems that conditional support for the Afghan government is partly based on the lack of faith in any alternative. Warlordism, even if it is a phenomenon Afghans have to live with, is not popular, still less foreign Islamic fighters. Foreigners of any kind are not regarded as much help and attitudes even to the hard working foreign aid organisations are generally equivocal.

There is minimal support among the respondents for the Taliban; fewer than one in ten Afghans express any support for them at all, and there is no sign of this growing. Nor are the Taliban regarded as more influential than before, even if their presence is still evident in terms of the kidnappings, killings and bombings that continue to impact significantly on the lives of ordinary Afghans in many parts of the country. Afghans have never liked the Taliban, but they fear them, and the decline in public support for the US has not given the Taliban any perceptible boost. Nor do Afghans seem to feel that the Taliban have reformed, despite the adoption by Taliban leaders of more overtly nationalist rhetoric and a toning down of some of the fundamentalist messages. The Taliban, Al-Qa’ida and foreign Jihadi fighters are collectively still blamed by most Afghans for the violence the country suffers and while there is growing support (now at 64 per cent) for efforts to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban, the caveat that the overwhelming majority would favour this ‘only if the Taliban first stop fighting’ is very significant. The Afghans do not have a problem deciding what to think about the Taliban, but they lack faith in the government, or the Coalition, to prevail against the insurgents. They see Pakistan as deeply complicit in the problems they face, though are surprisingly neutral over the role Iran plays in the current crisis.

The Kabul government is not on the verge of falling to the Taliban. The Afghan government has 80,000 troops, who benefit from close U.S. air support, and the total number of Taliban fighters in the Pashtun provinces is estimated at 10,000 to 15,000. Kabul is in danger of losing control of some villages in the provinces to dissident Pashtun warlords styled "Taliban," though it is not clear why the new Afghan army could not expel them if they did so. A smaller, poorly equipped Northern Alliance army defeated 60,000 Taliban with U.S. air support in 2001. And there is no prospect of "al-Qaida" reestablishing bases in Afghanistan from which it could attack the United States. If al-Qaida did come back to Afghanistan, it could simply be bombed and would be attacked by the new Afghan army.

President Karzai tends to be held responsible for problems with the economy, and urban men under the age of 35, who are largely unemployed, are losing confidence in him. Urban women and Uzbeks in the North are the two groups that most doubt the positive direction of the state. Notably, the biggest decline in confidence was among the skilled professionals and those not in conflict areas, as they perceive newly gained economic and political progress as being under threat. In the North, people generally view the state as relatively strong. In the Southeast, people view the state as weak.

The U.S. and international forces are held responsible for security. In areas where the U.S. and international forces are perceived to be strong, opinions of them are high even if security is poor. In locations where international forces are deemed weak, they are much less popular, even if security is good. Afghans tend to view the U.S. as overwhelmingly powerful, and therefore see the security situation on the ground as a direct reflection of U.S. choices and priorities. Mr. Periello reported that many Afghans assume that rather than poor management of the war and state-building, the resurgence of Taliban, al Qaeda, and warlord forces is an intentional gambit by the U.S. to support Pakistan and/or to show cause for establishing permanent bases in Afghanistan.

FEOS wrote:

How is it in comparison to what was there before?

FEOS wrote:

It's been eight years. I think the Coalition has figured out how to get across Afghanistan at this point. It's easier for us than it is for the Taliban, at least.