BF2S Forums Where is Afghan Politics Going?

A government/group/dictator will only gain power the way they know, the violent overthrow of opposition.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Karzai is doing deals with Iran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11618969

A sovereign nation is engaged in foreign relations with its neighbor. Heaven forbid!

Dilbert_X wrote:

NATO Is helping the Afghans do deals with the Taliban
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLAL00453420101015

COIN 101. Determine insurgency's complaints. Address those that are legitimate. Further delegitimize among the population those issues you feel aren't legitimate. If you address the legitimate complaints, that's less that the insurgency has to work with against you WRT the population, which is the true center of gravity in the fight.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Fuck knows what the warlords are doing outside Kabul
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … Kabul.html

Welcome to thousands of years of tribal culture. This is the challenge for Karzai and Petraeus in the years ahead if the peace talks work out: getting the warlords to work within the parliamentary system.

Dilbert_X wrote:

What will the political landscape of Afghanistan look like in 5, 10, 20 years time?

Hopefully like a functioning parliamentary democracy. Hope not being a method...who the fuck knows? The greatest minds in political science don't know, so I doubt a few amateurs on a gaming forum will.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

A sovereign nation is engaged in foreign relations with its neighbor. Heaven forbid!

I wasn't aware 'foreign relations' normally included transferring sackfuls of cash to the premier.

It consists of whatever that sovereign nation deems to be in their national interests. If that involves receiving foreign aid from another country in the form of bags of euros, then that's what it is. We don't have to agree with it, but it is their prerogative.

Dilbert_X wrote:

COIN 101. Determine insurgency's complaints. Address those that are legitimate. Further delegitimize among the population those issues you feel aren't legitimate. If you address the legitimate complaints, that's less that the insurgency has to work with against you WRT the population, which is the true center of gravity in the fight.

You're sure they aren't just doing a quick and dirty deal? I'll bet they are, cave in to some demands, cede control of certain areas, involve them in govt. etc.

Read FM 3-24 or any other counterinsurgency text.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I wasn't aware 'foreign relations' normally included transferring sackfuls of cash to the premier.

It consists of whatever that sovereign nation deems to be in their national interests. If that involves receiving foreign aid from another country in the form of bags of euros, then that's what it is. We don't have to agree with it, but it is their prerogative.

I guess the question is whether its in Afghanistan's national interests to be receiving cash from a direct opponent of their supposed number one ally, or whether its in Karzai's personal interest to have a bundle of cash.

I did read somewhere he has bank accounts all over the place stuffed with millions of euros and US dollars.

It's up to the government of Afghanistan to determine that, not the government of the US or anyone else.

Dilbert_X wrote:

OK, but the US fought, died and spent billions to install democracy and you're not bothered a crook tied to the Iranians is in charge now?

I'm more concerned that enduring democracy works there. Just because he's taking money from them doesn't mean they're spooning at night, Dilbert.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

OK, but the US fought, died and spent billions to install democracy and you're not bothered a crook tied to the Iranians is in charge now?

I'm more concerned that enduring democracy works there. Just because he's taking money from them doesn't mean they're spooning at night, Dilbert.

Honestly, I don't think democracy is very well suited for Afghanistan.  A highly tribal country is just too fractured and primitive for a decent democracy.

Before you can make social and political progress, you have to make economic progress.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm more concerned that enduring democracy works there. Just because he's taking money from them doesn't mean they're spooning at night, Dilbert.

Honestly, I don't think democracy is very well suited for Afghanistan.  A highly tribal country is just too fractured and primitive for a decent democracy.

Before you can make social and political progress, you have to make economic progress.

They'd frankly be better off with no central government at all.

We could split them up by ethnic lines.  Then, when the extremists would most likely gather in some of the separate countries for those specific ethnic areas, we could bomb them without declaring war on the whole area.

It would make things a lot more practical.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They'd frankly be better off with no central government at all.

We could split them up by ethnic lines.  Then, when the extremists would most likely gather in some of the separate countries for those specific ethnic areas, we could bomb them without declaring war on the whole area.

It would make things a lot more practical.

There would be no economic progress if the country were fractured along ethnic boundaries.

Wouldn't some groups benefit?  I figure some of them are more productive than others.

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We could split them up by ethnic lines.  Then, when the extremists would most likely gather in some of the separate countries for those specific ethnic areas, we could bomb them without declaring war on the whole area.

It would make things a lot more practical.

There would be no economic progress if the country were fractured along ethnic boundaries.

There will be no economic progress regardless. They're a landlocked, resource poor nation that depends on scratch farming, shepherding and opium. Not a whole lot to work with there.

Other landlocked, resource-poor nations have managed to progress beyond tribalism. They don't have to be the next member of the G-20 to show progress on the economic front, you know.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

OK, but the US fought, died and spent billions to install democracy and you're not bothered a crook tied to the Iranians is in charge now?

I'm more concerned that enduring democracy works there. Just because he's taking money from them doesn't mean they're spooning at night, Dilbert.

I don't suppose Iran is giving away millions in hard won foreign currency because they're generous people either.

Of course not. They're hoping to influence Afghanistan. But hope is not a method, and Afghanistan has its own way of doing things.

Afghanistan is where empires go to die.