The War in Afghanistan

[Lummel]

Question for those who care to comment: To what extent has this conflict turned into something that relates to Pakistan more than Afghanistan? This is an idea that I've heard said, and it's not implausible. Pakistan is huge, it's got tons of people, it's Islamic, it's got an unstable gov't, it's got the bomb, etc...

Pakistan was always a big part of the issue and bigger than the other neighbours because of Kashmir, because of the tribal areas (previously known as the North West Frontier back in the day), because of Pakistans feudal system and social structures, the role of the military specifically the overlap / integration between the military and all the various radical militas whether they are fighting in Kashmir or afganistan. On the whole the government is probably more stable than most - certainly executive power is in the hands of a small number of families, maybe a few hundred if that. Pakistan is going to be deeply involved in Afganistan what ever happens if only to put a cap on instability within its own borders.

[Guest Raidne]

No, it's not. It's a Congressional authorization of force, or whatever.

Oh, I just scrolled down looking for Vietnam and missed the change in headings. Thanks for catching that.

So yes, we should stop doing that and actually declare wars on or over, also.

[Guest Raidne]

Oh yes. I know. Don't get me started. I suppose I have to loathe Obama for not doing anything to change that just as much as I loathed Bush for getting the party started, or, properly speaking, I guess, reviving the party.

[Guest Raidne]

I have had a lot of interaction over the years with the ACLU, both in regard to their casework and events, and they really do good work. I have to mention again that it blows my freaking mind that there is a part of the government actually devoted to what the ACLU does in Sweden. The worst thing about working for the feds is that I cannot work on any cases where the federal government is the adverse party. *sigh*

So, okay, you're right. Having said that, I still think you're 100% wrong for not voting for the only person that could possibly keep John McCain and Sarah Palin out of office.

But I guess that's all a different thread. So far, it's hard to say what I really think about the Obama Administration's approach to Iraq and Afghanistan, because they play their cards so close, but broadly speaking, I'm okay with what they're doing.

I wish I had any idea what we were doing with other countries in the region, but you'll never know that kind of thing, even from a dude who promised transparency.

[IheartTesla]

There's been speculation that Obama is getting mideast talks moving in exchange for some kind of assurance that Israel could attack Iran sometime in the future if their nuclear weapons program (which never existed in the first place) goes online.

There has also been speculation that Obama convinced the Israelis the Iranians have about a year (rather than months) to fix the problems with their nuclear program before they become weapons ready, thereby preventing them from attacking Iran right now. I think he has had to walk a fine line with Iran and he's doing pretty well so far.

I dont have much of an opinion on Afghanistan though. Doubling down on an already long war is not a great option.

[Guest Raidne]

Well, you might need to start digging. You won't like what you find. Personally, I find it offensive that anyone could think that blowing up cucumber farmers, burning people's crops, raping their women, and doing the stuff that we usually do in war, is "okay". YMMV.

Can you really say that behavior is condoned by the administration?

I'm not ever "okay" with the sort of actions that you describe which are, IMHO, impossible to eradicate in a war zone.

[Shryke]

Coco, I think you need to let go of this bone you've got in your mouth and start looking the giant dinosaur it's attached to.

It's not like the executive branch is some sort of evil overlord orchestrating this whole thing.

The US is in this war because it's still more popular and supported to be there then to get the fuck out. And that goes extra for a Democratic Party government who have an extra high bar to jump on these kind of issues.

Afghanistan is the forgotten war in the US, where Iraq has been stealing it's thunder for nigh on 7 years now. The corner on public sentiment hasn't turned on it yet so pulling out is politically nonviable. Shit, even if you don't believe Obama chose to double-down on Afghanistan for strategic reasons, it was the only real political move a Democrat could make on the wars issue (it's sad that an "s" must be added there btw) without getting slapped with the old terrorist lover label.

(And I think Obama really did believe it was the best thing to do. There was alot of stuff going around basically saying the problem with Afghanistan and the way the mission was going was that the US had pulled most of it's stuff out to focus on Iraq.)

The US is there because the US populace don't hate the war enough yet to make pulling out possible. With Iraq "ending" and the violence mounting, this will probably change. I know in Canada the sentiments on the conflict have been steadily souring more and more over the past few years, as what was once hope and belief that we were accomplishing something turns into a big load of nothing but kids coming home in body bags.

Also, I didn't expect much on the giving up executive power front. He has toned down some of it's use, but he hasn't let go of any of the strings.

[alguien]

Also, I didn't expect much on the giving up executive power front. He has toned down some of it's use, but he hasn't let go of any of the strings.

And I think its what, one President in the entire history of the USA, who has ever given up executive powers?

[Hereward]

Could you elaborate on this a bit more, Hereward? How would it be partitioned and what part would be encircled and by whom?

Well, as I understand it, the idea is that Afghanistan is a civil war in its very conception. There is no such thing as an Afghan, simply a warring patchwork of nationalities and tribes. So, if the Tajiks and Uzbeks could be split off to their parent countries, as if they'd want them, the Hazaras to... wait for it... Iran, the Pashtuns could be cut loose and surrounded by beefed up security. This has some major problems, as I'm sure you,ll agree, but the idea is getting attention in regional forums and the media, and someone is pushing it.

Haven't the Brits had their fun partitioning already?

I mean, shit, the UK is part of the reason this place is as fucked up as it is now.

Is this my week for getting blamed for the present day attitudes of a subset of the British population and ninetheenth century empire builders, 'cause I never got the memo? Or, in other words, it's not a British idea.

[zollo]

Well, as I understand it, the idea is that Afghanistan is a civil war in its very conception. There is no such thing as an Afghan, simply a warring patchwork of nationalities and tribes. So, if the Tajiks and Uzbeks could be split off to their parent countries, as if they'd want them, the Hazaras to... wait for it... Iran, the Pashtuns could be cut loose and surrounded by beefed up security. This has some major problems, as I'm sure you,ll agree, but the idea is getting attention in regional forums and the media, and someone is pushing it.

Is this my week for getting blamed for the present day attitudes of a subset of the British population and ninetheenth century empire builders, 'cause I never got the memo? Or, in other words, it's not a British idea.

Being Dutch I demand some of the blame as well - after all Dutch troops fought and died in Afghanistan too. Much like yourself we are an angry, jealous nation because our golden age came and went in the 18th century and now we are just a backwater. And we really hate Americans. And stuff.

[Artas]

Much like yourself we are an angry, jealous nation because our golden age came and went in the 18th century

Psst, Zollo, it was actually the 17th century!

By the 18th century, we'd pretty much stopped being fabulous.

[zollo]

Psst, Zollo, it was actually the 17th century!

By the 18th century, we'd pretty much stopped being fabulous.

Aye, the golden age - but I was aiming to include our finest colonial hour - occupying and brutally exploiting Indonesia. Although granted, that didn't really kick off until 1800.

[macaroni]

The reason they went in was because of 9/11. It became a side-issue because of the neocon obsession with Iraq. We all know what happened there.

Old Barry Obama made it a crux of his election to get out of Iraq because this is not where AQ came from, it was an Af-Pak problem and NATO should be concentrating on this. He was right on both counts.

Consequently, the REAL afghan war has only begun within the last couple of years. Before this, it was merely containment and drone strikes. The Pashtun south (the taliban heartland) was left alone until very recently.

What is happening now is classic counter-insurgency, they are entering towns and providing security and building projects to engender themselves to the local population. the problem is that counter-insurgency is usually a long term strategy and that Bazza wants out next year. The other problem is that Pakistan is playing both sides as it sees the Taliban as a useful ally against perceived Indian incursions into their sphere of influence. The other other problem is Iranian involvment in the far west of Afghanistan, specifically the co-adherent Shias.

What I believe will happen is that NATO will bomb the taliban into seeking terms for 'reconciliation' and then get the hell out. Its the best anyone could do. Those neocons who advocated leaving Afghanistan as a fully functioning western liberal democracy were living in cloud cuckoo land. It is a country, quite literally, living in the Middle Ages. It is a series of fiefdoms owned by local barons/earls (now called 'warlords') fighting for influence and power.

It is honestly not that dissimilar to ASOIAF!

[macaroni]

I can understand that the US and UK have much to answer for in the creation of modern Iran...removing a democratically elected leader (Mossadek) and replacing him with a Shah who liked spending money like it was going out of fashion. Not one of Churchill's finest hours.

But, that was a long time ago, the reality is that modern Iran is theocratic dictatorship built along millenarian aims. It wants to be the major power of the middle east. It is not in the West's interest to allow it to happen. This is the real politik.

I disagree that its the same strategy as the Soviets, East India Company etc.

For starters, technology has changed. I guarantee that Special forces are currently killing middle-ranking members of the taliban - just like they did in Iraq. And also paying others off - the equivalent to 'awakening councils'.

I agree there will not be any gettysberg/waterloo moment...its not that sort of place. But there will be a deal. Deal-making and honour are very much part of the pashtunwali code.

[Shryke]

Is it condoned? Well, Obama put McChrystal in charge, the same guy who covered up Pat Tillman's death, the same guy whose job in Iraq was to carry out targeted assassinations.

Never forget that Obama has authorized assassinations on American citizens.

He was also, you know, a General. That might have had something to do with him getting the job....

Also, he authorized the ability to use deadly force, if necessary. Something that's generally not done, but has precedent. There's a committee to handle it after all.

So we're in Afghanistan because the Democrats need to win? How about that, Raidne? How is that with Obama's great handling of this war? I've heard this argument before. I don't buy it, because killing countless civilians (countless because we don't keep count!) to win elections is never justified no mater what party is doing it. I know you are throwing around the real politik here, and not necessarily justifying it, but it's abominable, and what you're describing is the same bone I'm picking. Political expediency, while tempting, is not justifiable if it involves mass killings.

By the way, the majority of the public does not support the Afghan war.

No Coco, and if you stopped for a second, took a deep breath, and started reading what people are writing without automatically interpreting it to fit your own beliefs and prejudices, you'd see it.

The US is in Afghanistan because the public support that war (or did when the decision was made). It's a democracy Coco. If public support for the war is high, the war will continue. That's the way the system works. Of course it's political, it's supposed to be. There is lag time between changing feelings and the government's response though. Just actually read your article and you'll note that it's publishing these results because they are a dramatic drop from what they were before.

Which is, crazy I know, exactly what I said. The corner is turning on public sentiment about the Afghanistan War. But back 2ish years ago when the decision to double down was made, support was quite a bit higher.

So you're saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do"? Shryke, I remember you saying to me during the 2008 elections, and God forgive me for bringing this up...

I think you are too pessimistic on Afghanistan.

Please Coco. A stopped clock is right twice a day too. Don't pretend this vindicates your constant pessimism and proves that everyone else just didn't know as much as you.

[Shryke]

Sure, when you blow enough sunshine up everyone's ass, of course they'll believe you. Once Obama switches on the Sincereatron, there's no stopping him from death and destruction.

Your point is that Obama is doing it because it's politically expedient? The bailouts weren't (most of them, anyway, esp the motorco's), but we did it anyway.

See, again, you act like Obama started this war or something. He came in mid-stream and support for the war was high. It's not like he was the one blowing sunshine up everyone's ass.

Also, as I said, there was alot of talk in the military and among military analysts at the time that this was doable. Put more men in Afghanistan and you could salvage the situation.

The public supported it, the military analysis supported it, so they went it.

I battled with you, EHK and Dante for months about Afghanistan, and it turns out I'm right, so let me spell it out for you in 4 words: I told you so. This was a mistake from the beginning, and Obama decided to pour salt on a wound.

It's time to call the War on Terror quits, even if Americans are dumb sheep who don't realize their backyard swimming pool is more likely to kill them than extremists of any kind.

Yeah, alright Coco...

[Guest Raidne]

Hey, Coco, as long as you're being all right about everything, where's bin Laden?

Also, do you really think Al Qaeda is dismantled? If so, I'm with you, let's call it quits and get the hell out of there.

[Guest Raidne]

Yes, in general, many people on the Board are inclined to let Wall Street get away with it using that exact reasoning. See the recent thread on The Big Short, as well as many earlier iterations.

I will also admit to actually buying that reasoning prior to reading The Big Short, because I am a freaking gullible moron and deserve the government I have helped elect.

[Guest Raidne]

Hmmm... didn't see that thread. It was probably our libertarian friends that did the doubting, haha

Not really. I think Iskarul and Chats are pretty middle-of-the-road fiscal conservatives by our American standards. I'll tell you this though - suggest that people on Wall Street messed up because they are stupid, and people take it awfully personally.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but my wife voted for Obama and I wouldn't say the same thing about her. 2008 was a shit year at the end of a shit decade, and everyone wanted something to be different.

I'm not. I did not think we were being ushered into a new era of sunshine and rainbows, but I did think we would improve our international relations and recommit to the United Nations, reverse the trend of ever-increasing income-inequality, end both wars, and add sexual orientation to Title VII and end DOTA by now.

I didn't really think the Republicans would revisit the Gingrich years on steroids either.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Hmm, what's the (current) fighting's about? Seems pretty straightforward: Establishing a strong&stable government in Afghanistan that will work against radical Islamic movements and global terror and rebuild their country.

Is it impossible? I don't think so. If we compare it to the task the Soviet Union set out to do there (Eradicate Religion from the land and replace it with the very alien concepts of Communism in Afghanistan of all places) what the USA and its allies aim for is much easier: Establishing a moderately more moderate version of the native religion and insurance against world domination ideas. This is not aiming for the sky. Nobody today even dreams of demanding that women would stop hiding their hair, the straw that broke the USSR's control on Afghanistan.

I think people make too much out of the corruption of Afghani regime. Corruption is pretty much expected. What matters is how much the needs of the people are seen to and who is the face of the government in the street (that is, who does the government employ and/or work with)