Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13

 

2012-01-07 11:21:44
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

eleven bravo wrote:

the taliban was created in the madrassas of pakistan long before they ever took control of afghanistan.  the taliban is new movement of pashtun political alliances influenced by pakistani mullahs
So is there any hope of creating an Afghan non-taliban state strong enough to withstand the influence of the Pakistanis?

They obviously cannot handle their shit against us, we did a pretty heavy duty raid deep inside their territory when we killed OBL.  Right next to their freakin West Point.  Whats the harm in us maintaining a tiny force of special ops in the immediate area and letting the region sort out its own politics?

As opposed to keeping tens of thousands of troops/contractors for the next several decades.

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-07 11:23:56)

2012-01-07 11:23:05
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6665|'Murka

I believe that's the intent.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-07 11:24:26
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

FEOS wrote:

I believe that's the intent.
You mean the long term intent?
2012-01-07 11:25:57
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6665|'Murka

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I believe that's the intent.
You mean the long term intent?
Post-drawdown. So yes, long-term.

Afghanis have to get up to some level of self-sufficiency first.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-07 11:32:04
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I believe that's the intent.
You mean the long term intent?
Post-drawdown. So yes, long-term.

Afghanis have to get up to some level of self-sufficiency first.
In your opinion can the regular Army be relied upon at all?  Or are we going to rely upon the Afghan "special ops" to lay down the law?

Can this be done before 2014?

What I am really asking is : is some level of Afghan self sufficiency really necessary (or possible)?  Our capacity in the region, from the Indian/Pakistan border all the fuck way over to North Africa seems to be somewhat stretched thin.  Are we supposed to fight a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear Iran simultaneously if a worst case scenario unfolds?
2012-01-07 11:40:11
rdx-fx
...
+955|6846

Spearhead wrote:

So is there any hope of creating an Afghan non-taliban state strong enough to withstand the influence of the Pakistanis?
Why bother?

The entire region needs a policy of containment, not change.
All the money and bombs in the world are not going to force the Afghani or Pakistani people to change one whit beyond what they decide they want to do.

Afghanistan has been a tribal shithole since the invention of tribal shitholes, and when there are no more tribal shitholes in the world -  Afghanistan will still be a stubborn tribal shithole, to serve as a reminder of why we evolved away from "tribal shithole" as a system of government.

Containment and isolation, to keep their tribal/religious bullshit from disturbing the citizens of the civilized world.

(Mis)using our military to play "babysitter", and soaking the taxpayer for the bill, is gross incompetence by the US government.
2012-01-07 11:41:34
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5612|London, England
Break up the country
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-07 11:42:33
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

rdx-fx wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

So is there any hope of creating an Afghan non-taliban state strong enough to withstand the influence of the Pakistanis?
Why bother?

The entire region needs a policy of containment, not change.
All the money and bombs in the world are not going to force the Afghani or Pakistani people to change one whit beyond what they decide they want to do.

Afghanistan has been a tribal shithole since the invention of tribal shitholes, and when there are no more tribal shitholes in the world -  Afghanistan will still be a stubborn tribal shithole, to serve as a reminder of why we evolved away from "tribal shithole" as a system of government.

Containment and isolation, to keep their tribal/religious bullshit from disturbing the citizens of the civilized world.

(Mis)using our military to play "babysitter", and soaking the taxpayer for the bill, is gross incompetence by the US government.
So letting the Taliban rule the country for a few generations until the people revolt, unite, and fight against them themselves would be a better long term strategy?

I am not suggesting it is better or worse, just food for thought.

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-07 12:16:37)

2012-01-07 11:45:59
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
Thats what we shouldve done with Iraq.  Iran now owns half the country, just not in name and the Kurds are being them normal seccesionist selves.  And now we are seeing what happens when there is not a dictator/military force kicking down peoples doors just to keep borders which were drawn after world war one

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-07 13:20:01)

2012-01-07 12:33:31
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6254|...

Spearhead wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

So is there any hope of creating an Afghan non-taliban state strong enough to withstand the influence of the Pakistanis?
Why bother?

The entire region needs a policy of containment, not change.
All the money and bombs in the world are not going to force the Afghani or Pakistani people to change one whit beyond what they decide they want to do.

Afghanistan has been a tribal shithole since the invention of tribal shitholes, and when there are no more tribal shitholes in the world -  Afghanistan will still be a stubborn tribal shithole, to serve as a reminder of why we evolved away from "tribal shithole" as a system of government.

Containment and isolation, to keep their tribal/religious bullshit from disturbing the citizens of the civilized world.

(Mis)using our military to play "babysitter", and soaking the taxpayer for the bill, is gross incompetence by the US government.
So letting the Taliban rule the country for a few generations until the people revolt, unite, and fight against them themselves would be a better long term strategy?

I am not suggestion it is better or worse, just food for thought.
No, it doesn't work. Afghanistan would revert to the situation that existed during the Afghan civil war in the 90s, when it was used as a proxy ground for regional powers. The country would once again become a hotspot for the bad guys we tried to (permanently) remove in the first place. The situation won't resolve itself, if the public were to revolt the taliban would only be replaced by another (religious) dictatorship backed by one of the other regional powers. Ad infinitum.

The problems with this conflict are many: lots of regional interference, disunity among the Afghans themselves, the country's borders being anything but secure, a total lack of social (and other) infrastructure, the aftermath of the initial US-led invasion being a clusterfuck due to the political leadership not doing its homework nor listening to its defense staff nor doing what it was supposed to (which also happened in Iraq).

If there's anything the conflict in Afghanistan has brought to light, it's that the problem we went in to fix isn't at all isolated to this country. Our problem is with the entire region. The danger is that the mistakes made and the lack of understanding of the bigger picture have now left us with little to no time left to try and get something done that will last. The military has overstayed its welcome and the mission won't be able to continue much longer.

Right, I'll be honest, as far as I'm concerned we've lost round 1. Round 2 will commence if new anti-western terror groups are allowed to form (with or without a supporting state in the ME) and they lash out against us.

If.

I'll just hope they stick to fighting among themselves this time.

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
The borders would only exist on paper, kinda like they do now.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-07 12:39:17)

inane little opines
2012-01-07 12:40:03
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5612|London, England
Correct, but it would give people more local control, and a reason to resist outsiders.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-07 12:55:43
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6254|...
The tribal structure that exists now makes it redundant to split up the country. In the best interest of themselves the Afghans should start working together more, as it stands they don't have the means to resist anyone.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-07 12:56:03)

inane little opines
2012-01-07 13:29:57
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

Shocking wrote:

I'll just hope they stick to fighting among themselves this time.
So in other words, you're saying "there is no lasting and permanent solution" as to the interests of the USA in the region?

Ignoring the perspective that it may still be a breeding ground for international terrorism, what options does the USA have in regards to the current situation?  Are we to perpetually strong arm the region until hell freezes over?

In 10 years, what will Afghanistan look like?  Of course, its impossible to answer.  Again, just food for thought.
2012-01-07 13:42:46
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6665|'Murka

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
Thats what we shouldve done with Iraq.  Iran now owns half the country, just not in name and the Kurds are being them normal seccesionist selves.  And now we are seeing what happens when there is not a dictator/military force kicking down peoples doors just to keep borders which were drawn after world war one
You need to read up a bit more on Iranian influence (or lack thereof) in Iraq. Shia influence =/= Iranian influence.

The Iraqis--even the Shia Iraqis--are still pretty pissed about that 8-year war with Iran. They're not going to welcome them with open arms.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-07 14:30:01
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6254|...

Spearhead wrote:

Shocking wrote:

I'll just hope they stick to fighting among themselves this time.
So in other words, you're saying "there is no lasting and permanent solution" as to the interests of the USA in the region?

Ignoring the perspective that it may still be a breeding ground for international terrorism, what options does the USA have in regards to the current situation?  Are we to perpetually strong arm the region until hell freezes over?

In 10 years, what will Afghanistan look like?  Of course, its impossible to answer.  Again, just food for thought.
That's a very complicated question. Answering it goes beyond my understanding of the conflict and the region as a whole, though I reckon to create a lasting solution continued military presence (in some form) and oversight on the Afghan government + continued heavy investment and involvement in it is necessary.

Realistically, it's not really achievable. Ideally you'd have the regional powers working with you though many in the ME are clearly unwilling to really do that, much less the most important states in the direct vicinity of Afghanistan - Iran & Pakistan. One is actively working to undermine coalition efforts, the other state is so rife with corruption and dissent that even if they had the will to work with the coalition there are many in positions of power (particularly within the ISI) that won't.

To make sure the Afghan government can sustain itself and resist outsiders it would require another decade or so of physical presence and many more years of close cooperation, oversight and investment. That's not going to happen. It's also questionable if you actually solve the ME terrorism problem by stabilizing Afghanistan. My guess is, we wouldn't. As I said, the problem persists in the entire region rather than being isolated in one country and if many states in the region are deep down unwilling to work with you, there's not all that much that you can do or achieve.

Not to mention the social issues within each of these countries making effective cooperation with them very hard. To make matters worse our presence seems to fuel the fire at times as we've become the ME bogeyman because of the terrible diplomatic approach during the bush years in Afgh/Iraq, exacerbating the problems. Much of the change that is needed has to come from within, over which we have little / limited influence. What we can do and what I think is going to happen is lots and lots of diplomatic involvement in the region, with a reliance on the intelligence services for much of the future CT efforts.

10 years? Like shit.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-07 14:33:32)

inane little opines
2012-01-07 14:34:44
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5612|London, England
You're too funny man. You think it's worth the cost? Lol.

Cost of Afghanistan war so far:
$489,662,565,284

Cost of replacing WTC with freedom tower:
$3,000,000,000

Could've funded more than 150 replacements for the price tag of this war. No, we don't need to police the region forever, it was an isolated incident. We just need less sleepy intelligence agencies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-07 14:38:45
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6254|...
No, it's not worth the cost. As I said, realistically, it won't happen. There's no funds to continue and there's no public support for the mission, nor would we solve the problem with continued military presence (as I argued above).
inane little opines
2012-01-07 14:39:26
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6727|Kakanien

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
easy to say when it's not your country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2012-01-07 14:40:47
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5612|London, England

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
easy to say when it's not your country
I'd put it up for a popular vote, but I'm pretty sure the people would want it. They have no real national identity.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-07 15:13:10
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
Thats what we shouldve done with Iraq.  Iran now owns half the country, just not in name and the Kurds are being them normal seccesionist selves.  And now we are seeing what happens when there is not a dictator/military force kicking down peoples doors just to keep borders which were drawn after world war one
You need to read up a bit more on Iranian influence (or lack thereof) in Iraq. Shia influence =/= Iranian influence.

The Iraqis--even the Shia Iraqis--are still pretty pissed about that 8-year war with Iran. They're not going to welcome them with open arms.
Eh, I never said I wasnt aware of differences within the different parties.  But its hard to argue that Iran has LESS influence in Iraq now than it did BEFORE 2003. 

The Iraqi people never voted to become a centralized government.  Hence the whole obsolete, post world war 1 borders comment.  There is no scenario which keeps Iraq in peace as a whole, without a large military occupation (foreign or domestic) involved.  Was surge was successful?  Hardly. It bought us time to "save face" (see : Department of Defense, 1960's).  In other words, we paid some people off, and set a timetable.  No one should be surprised later this year if Iraq descends into full blown civil war/genocide...
2012-01-07 15:15:31
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5840

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
What exactly does splitting the country up accomplish? Is there some sort of extreme sectarian violence going on that we don't hear about?

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-01-07 15:28:39)

2012-01-07 15:26:31
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

Macbeth wrote:

What exactly does splitting the country up accomplish? Is there some sort of extreme sectarian violence going on that we don't hear about?
Sunni death squads rumored to be linked to vice president? The Vice President being charged with "terrorism" and running away to Kurdistan?  The prime minister having links with Hezbollah and Iran before Hussein was overthrown?

Iraq is a journalists/watchdog blackhole.  What else would you expect when we can't even operate there without outsourcing truck drivers?

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-07 15:29:00)

2012-01-07 15:27:51
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5840

Spearhead wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

What exactly does splitting the country up accomplish? Is there some sort of extreme sectarian violence going on that we don't hear about?
Sunni death squads rumored to be linked to vice president? The Vice President being charged with "terrorism" and running away to Kurdistan?  The prime minister having links with Hezbollah and Iran before Hussein was overthrown?
I'm talking about Afghanistan.
2012-01-07 16:17:05
rdx-fx
...
+955|6846

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
What exactly does splitting the country up accomplish? Is there some sort of extreme sectarian violence going on that we don't hear about?
Afghanistan suffers the same problem that most of the middle east has - their borders were drawn by foreigners long ago.
There are incompatible people living within these artificial borders, forced on them 100 years ago during The Great Game, and further compounded during/after WW2.

Two, Afghanistani people, for the most part, don't have a national identity.  The tribals are very much uninterested in national politics, and have little to no concept of international identity.

Three, just about any attempt at "helping" them is seen as outside meddling in their internal tribal affairs.
Which, honestly, it is - any outside "help" is usually used as an incentive to get the tribals to pick sides in someone else's war.

Breaking up the country along the lines of existing racial/ethnic/tribal divisions would make sense.
But they should be the ones to do the partitioning.

Same thing that needs to be done throughout the entire middle east.
Might have some hope of a lasting peace, if the national borders somewhat followed the religious and ethnic identities of the people on the ground there.

Edit: And to be clear, the West shouldn't be the one drawing the borders this time.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-01-07 16:17:41)

2012-01-07 16:53:42
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5840

rdx-fx wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Break up the country
What exactly does splitting the country up accomplish? Is there some sort of extreme sectarian violence going on that we don't hear about?
Afghanistan suffers the same problem that most of the middle east has - their borders were drawn by foreigners long ago.
There are incompatible people living within these artificial borders, forced on them 100 years ago during The Great Game, and further compounded during/after WW2.

Two, Afghanistani people, for the most part, don't have a national identity.  The tribals are very much uninterested in national politics, and have little to no concept of international identity.

Three, just about any attempt at "helping" them is seen as outside meddling in their internal tribal affairs.
Which, honestly, it is - any outside "help" is usually used as an incentive to get the tribals to pick sides in someone else's war.

Breaking up the country along the lines of existing racial/ethnic/tribal divisions would make sense.
But they should be the ones to do the partitioning.

Same thing that needs to be done throughout the entire middle east.
Might have some hope of a lasting peace, if the national borders somewhat followed the religious and ethnic identities of the people on the ground there.

Edit: And to be clear, the West shouldn't be the one drawing the borders this time.
It was rhetorical question. I don't think balkanizing the place would be the answer to the Afghan question. I know all about the history of the area and the ethnic makeup.


Same thing that needs to be done throughout the entire middle east.
No, just no. I know about how the French and British cut up the middle east after WW1. No need to link me to wikipedia. But to say the area needs to be cut up into little ethnic areas like what happened in the Balkans or how Europe looks today screams ethnocentrism. With the exception of Persia...The middle east was always ruled by governments made up of various different ethnic groups. The area has been incredibly heterogeneous throughout history. The area doesn't need a redrawing.

What worked in our part of the world. Will be the best thing for this part of the world.
Right....

Anyway I don't see how cutting up the country into little tiny countries helps at all with counter terrorism or will improve the lives of the people in the area. If a single government isn't working out for the people in the area cutting the place up into many countries won't help reduce complexity and improve conditions. It'll be a step backwards. If you think the place is a confusing tribal mess now, wait until it's cut into smaller independent parts.

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard