Democracy means voting for your friendly neighborhood dictator [Archive]

Prince Cobra

11-02-2009, 07:28

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/01/afghanistan.election/index.html

Well, at least that's what NATO seems to be saying now. Abdullah Abdullah backed out, now the Afghan people gets to vote on a mighty one candidate... Fortunately, that candidate is the one we're backing, so it still counts as democracy!!1

Withdraw the troops, I say. I see absolutely no reason why they should continue killing Afghani civilians when all they're doing is ensure that true democracy remains an illusion in Afghanistan.

It is very disappointing to see some people entrenched in the power with all the negative effects of it. But it is not surprising.

The whole idea of spreading democracy by force seems strange and unpracical. You can take freedom of the people by force but you can not make them free by force. In addition, NATO could have played their cards far better and to be more careful to the native people. For many of them, NATO is nothing but just another occupator ==> some support the Talibans, which I consider to be quite unappealing regime for my taste. To make the things worse, Afghanistan has always been more like a confederation of clans rather than a true state. :wall:

I really do not know what is the best policy in this case (withdrawing or not). Something must be changed but I do not think USA chose the right way.

HoreTore

11-02-2009, 07:52

It is very disappointing to see some people entrenched in the power with all the negative effects of it. But it is not surprising.

The whole idea of spreading democracy by force seems strange and unpracical. You can take freedom of the people by force but you can not make them free by force. In addition, NATO could have played their cards far better and to be more careful to the native people. For many of them, NATO is nothing but just another occupator ==> some support the Talibans, which I consider to be quite unappealing regime for my taste. To make the things worse, Afghanistan has always been more like a confederation of clans rather than a true state. :wall:

I really do not know what is the best policy in this case (withdrawing or not). Something must be changed but I do not think USA chose the right way.

That we still support Karzai shows clearly that our mission is not to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, but rather to install a puppet in control. The democracy thing has just been a PR-stunt.

If we actually were serious about freedom and democracy, of course we wouldn't support Karzai anymore, he's a bloody cheat and has no right to be in the position he is anymore. We don't support Putin, do we? And Putin actually has the real support of a majority of the russian people, something this idiot does not.

al Roumi

11-02-2009, 11:29

It is a mess. Dr Abdullah pulling out of the (re)ellection, after his accusations of fraud essentially catalysed the recount and review of corruption, has further undermined any efforts to give legitimacy to Afghan democracy in the eyes of everyone, most importantly the Afghans.

Why has he pulled out now? Same reason Karzai eventually agreed to allow the second stage vote: Dr Abdullah simply doesn't have the public support to beat Karzai in an election -however open, free and fair. Dr Abdullah's best and only hope of gaining any power is a deal with Karzai.

Subotan

11-02-2009, 11:33

Eh, you only really know if you live in a democracy if you can chuck the buggers out.

Fragony

11-02-2009, 11:38

We aren't there to bring democracy, why some even play with that idea is beyond me. Taliban can eventually overpower Pakistan, they have unlimited funds because of the opium-trade, do we think that is a very good idea. They have to go. Why? Because we can. Why not. Don't want to wake up in a nuclear wasteland not taking any chances.

rory_20_uk

11-02-2009, 12:05

Fragony

11-02-2009, 12:18

Legalise opium - suddenly less money for the Taliban.

Overrun Pakistan? Please! Every coutry has infinite money It's called taxes. You make it sound that the Taliban have some printing machine that others don't have.

Afghanistan is a mess, always was and might always be. Who gets elected to look after that wasteland is not my concern. Why should be get tarred with this country imploding?

Pakistan is also a mess, but it is in a position to be able to use some aid and support in a meaningful manner.

~:smoking:
All of that is true of course, call me nuts, but this isn't something we have dealt with before, I think we can expect extremely irrational actions because we are dealing with a religion here, and they won't play by our rules. On a scale of 1 to 10 how likely do you find it the Taliban will salaam a nuke, I have no idea but even such a scale is unacceptable to me.

HoreTore

11-02-2009, 12:36

Subotan

11-02-2009, 13:01

The Taliban get about 33% more money from foreign donations, than from the opium trade. Freeze the accounts, and you freeze the Taliban.

HoreTore

11-02-2009, 13:05

The Taliban get about 33% more money from foreign donations, than from the opium trade. Freeze the accounts, and you freeze the Taliban.

How will that matter, when the Afghani's still live in a dictatorship?

Subotan

11-02-2009, 15:04

I was just referring to the comments about Opium further up the page.

KukriKhan

11-02-2009, 16:09

How will that matter, when the Afghani's still live in a dictatorship?

What if they want to live in a dictatorship?

Husar

11-02-2009, 16:54

What if they want to live in a dictatorship?

In that case they lack education, enlightenment and a SOUL!:sweatdrop:

Banquo's Ghost

11-02-2009, 17:26

We're talking at sixes and sevens here.

Afghanistan is an artificial construct, delineated as usual by an imperial marker pen. There's at least six major ethnicities. It is a feudal society.

The "democracy" people are used to is that of the strong man who, through force of arms and patronage, secures his community's support. This is rooted in tribal relationships.

Karzai (now confirmed as "re-elected") has a writ that barely covers Kabul. He spent a great deal of money and favour getting enough warlords from the North on side to bring an election victory and thus four more years of pocket lining. Just as in our own ancient times, you buy the warlord, you buy his community.

There can be, will be no democracy as we in the West understand it. There can only be opportunities for Karzai and his favoured henchmen to continue to get rich, and pass laws against women that would make the Taliban blush. By the way, the Taliban are another amorphous group of common interests, this time united by religious fanaticism. They don't hold much sway in the north, but are gaining ground there (terrifying the locals) as they are increasingly rich and are seen as a good focus for a fight.

The US president and others must know this. They must be entirely aware that shedding blood to nation-build such a place is the dictionary definition of futile. President Obama's so-called "dithering" is a tacit recognition that any plan to have the Afghans develop enough to run their own affairs in the way the West wants is doomed. But it's actually easier to let more young men die that to admit how horrendously wrong all this has been. This is also a sobering motif from history.

Aemilius Paulus

11-02-2009, 17:51

The Taliban get about 33% more money from foreign donations, than from the opium trade. Freeze the accounts, and you freeze the Taliban.
Hmm, that is not what I read in the Economist, Time, or any other article. They all said, IIRC, that the vast majority of funds come from poppy fields. I would appreciate a citation.

Subotan

11-02-2009, 18:32

Hmm, that is not what I read in the Economist, Time, or any other article. They all said, IIRC, that the vast majority of funds come from poppy fields. I would appreciate a citation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092602707.html?sid=ST2009092602905

The CIA recently estimated that Taliban leaders and their allies received $106 million in the past year from donors outside Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has estimated that the Taliban collects $70 million annually from poppy farmers and narcotics traffickers. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, which monitors opium production, earlier projected that the Taliban and its affiliates earned as much as $400 million a year from the drug trade. The agency later revised the figure sharply downward, to about $100 million a year

Aemilius Paulus

11-02-2009, 19:33

Ahh, I see. Well, I suppose then you are correct, or at least mostly so. The funding is about half and half, with the drug production most likely being the past major source of funding, but now, with the prominence Taleban receives today coupled with anti-drug operations means that their drug revenues are going up and the donations are, if anything, either increasing or staying the same. Thus, I would not be surprised if the donations surpassed the drug revenues.

rvg

11-02-2009, 19:59

Karzai is the lesser of the multitude of evils that can take power in Afghanistan. As such, he should be given some support as a counterbalance to the Taliban. As bad/corrupt as he is, he's still an angel compared to Mullah Omar.

Prince Cobra

11-02-2009, 20:01

rvg

11-02-2009, 20:02

Are you sure this lesser evil is really needed? Don't you think this choice can backfire?

Anything can backfire, but leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban vultures is *guaranteed* to backfire.

Beskar

11-02-2009, 22:44

Didn't the Taliban used to shoot farmers/terrorise them against doing poppy fields?

Prince Cobra

11-03-2009, 00:17

Anything can backfire, but leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban vultures is *guaranteed* to backfire.

My question was: do you think Karzai is able to stop the Talibans?

HoreTore

11-03-2009, 00:19

Didn't the Taliban used to shoot farmers/terrorise them against doing poppy fields?

When they were in power, yes. Now they desperately need money, and as we say, "when the need is strong enough, the devil eats flies".

Anyway, it's not just the Taliban in the Afghani heroin trade. Removing the Taliban won't reduce the heroin exports, all it will do is make Karzai's comrades the only ones profiting from it. No wonder why Karzai wants the Taliban gone, eh? More money for him if they disappear...

And this is the guy we're supporting.

Centurion1

11-03-2009, 01:02

Honestly i would have left afghanistan and concentrate on iraq. More important of the tow and more easily won. While i support the afghanistan war i think it is veryyyyy hard to win there. Especially with a president who takes so long to make decisions and doesn't listen to his generals.

Beskar

11-03-2009, 05:45

They are withdrawing from Iraq, because iraq is apparently tamed now. They might be putting those that were stationed in Iraq in Afghanistan.

rvg

11-03-2009, 14:15

My question was: do you think Karzai is able to stop the Talibans?

Hell no. That's why we should stay there.

HopAlongBunny

11-03-2009, 15:07

rory_20_uk

11-03-2009, 15:48

I think Banquo's Ghost sums up the situation quite well.

Installing a Western style democracy would probably involve eliminating the Taliban; "neutralizing" the present warlords...and their clique...to the 3rd generation; imposing the "rule of law" through martial law (at least initially); finally getting the remaining ppl to agree that all of the above was a swell idea and for their good really...

Of course the above prescription ignores any thought of the legitimacy of the regime in the eyes of the ppl it was imposed upon. We can work that out over time...(return to beginning of process)

What gives us the right to do that? Considering the massive effort involved there are many other countries who'se problems are tiny in comparison and the money would be better spent removing corruption, improving facilities, siting clinics etc etc - all the same things, without the fighting and the bombing - and genuinely wanted by the locals!

When the rest of the world is a Utopia, then we can try to sort out the willfully backward, barbaric corrupt dumps.

~:smoking:

rvg

11-03-2009, 15:52

When the rest of the world is a Utopia, then we can try to sort out the willfully backward, barbaric corrupt dumps.

~:smoking:

The problem is that this willful, corrupt barbarism has a tendency to spread like an infectious disease. For example, if we withdraw from Afghanistan, then the Taliban after overpowering the regime in Kabul, will turn its eyes outward, to Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. We are basically containing a fire so that it does not engulf the entire region.

Lemur

11-03-2009, 16:02

[I]f we withdraw from Afghanistan, then the Taliban after overpowering the regime in Kabul, will turn its eyes outward, to Pakistan [...]
Ummm ... you do know where the Taliban came from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Spread_to_Pakistan), right? And who their biggest backers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/6338349/Pakistans-ISI-still-supporting-the-Taliban-say-Afghans.html) are?

rvg

11-03-2009, 16:07

Ummm ... you do know where the Taliban came from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Spread_to_Pakistan), right? And who their biggest backers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/6338349/Pakistans-ISI-still-supporting-the-Taliban-say-Afghans.html) are?

Sure, I also know whom the Pakistani government is currently fighting against.

HoreTore

11-03-2009, 16:11

rvg

11-03-2009, 16:13

Uhm....

Just like they did after they overthrew the Mujahedin and ruled until 2001?

Oh wait, they didn't....

Times have changed and so has Taliban's rhetoric and agenda. This isn't 1996 anymore.

Banquo's Ghost

11-03-2009, 16:15

The problem is that this willful, corrupt barbarism has a tendency to spread like an infectious disease. For example, if we withdraw from Afghanistan, then the Taliban after overpowering the regime in Kabul, will turn its eyes outward, to Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. We are basically containing a fire so that it does not engulf the entire region.

Completely wrong. The Taliban has its base in the Pashtun tribes - probably around 42% of Afghanistan's population. The Tajiks and other ethnicities in the north hate them with a passion. In 2001, Iran was a significant ally to the US precisely because they don't like the Taliban either. As Lemur notes, Pakistan has its problems already because of the Pashtun areas. China has its Uighurs, who are not fundamentalist so much as nationalist.

Really, it's one dimensional thinking like this that gets the West into these debacles.

rvg

11-03-2009, 16:22

Completely wrong. The Taliban has its base in the Pashtun tribes - probably around 42% of Afghanistan's population. The Tajiks and other ethnicities in the north hate them with a passion. In 2001, Iran was a significant ally to the US precisely because they don't like the Taliban either. As Lemur notes, Pakistan has its problems already because of the Pashtun areas. China has its Uighurs, who are not fundamentalist so much as nationalist.

Really, it's one dimensional thinking like this that gets the West into these debacles.

Interesting, considering that today the Pakistani Taliban has plenty of foot soldiers and sympathizers from across the Central Asia. Uzbeks are especially numerous in the Taliban's ranks, and after finishing off Afghanistan/Pakistan they would love nothing more than to do the same with Uzbekistan. But no, let's go ahead and think that Taliban will respect borders and agreements.

rory_20_uk

11-03-2009, 16:29

The problem is that this willful, corrupt barbarism has a tendency to spread like an infectious disease. For example, if we withdraw from Afghanistan, then the Taliban after overpowering the regime in Kabul, will turn its eyes outward, to Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. We are basically containing a fire so that it does not engulf the entire region.

Ah, so a modern "domino theory". Worked well last time, eh?

Containing would be to support the countries around the perimiter where there is a chance that help would be welcomed, set up small outposts of locals with international oversight / hardware, kill teams of specialists to preferably insert and arrest suspects rather than missiles from afar.

~:smoking:

rvg

11-03-2009, 16:35

Containing would be to support the countries around the perimiter where there is a chance that help would be welcomed, set up small outposts of locals with international oversight / hardware, kill teams of specialists to preferably insert and arrest suspects rather than missiles from afar.

~:smoking:

Too expensive and far too inefficient. Involves too many countries a few of which happen to hate our guts.

rory_20_uk

11-03-2009, 16:38

Too expensive and far too inefficient. Involves too many countries a few of which happen to hate our guts.

Inefficient compared to being in a "country" (if that name can really apply) whose people hate us?
Expensive compared to the current cost of destroyed hardware and troops either killed or injured?

Not cheap, nor elegant, but the heads of state in those around want to remain in power, and with one helicopter or AMC costing in the hundreds of thousands it ain't got to be either to be better.

~:smoking:

rvg

11-03-2009, 16:41

No. Coordinating political, military and economic isolation of Taliban held Afghanistan would be a logistical nightmare. Heck, Pakistan is incapable of controlling just its portion of the afghan border.

rory_20_uk

11-03-2009, 16:47

The most we can do is support the locals help themselves. Countries that are going to do something include Russia on the Northern border, China to the east, India and Pakistan to the South - and probably Iran if they got ideas above their station and possibly Russia to the West. The others might well do so if they aren't keen on pretending it's 550AD with oppression of almost erything.

Expecting that anything can be accomplished without significant local support is dreaming. When the population decide they like what they've got better than what the Taliban offer then you've got a definable border to defend. North Pakistan doesn't fit this criteria, so no wonder there is so much difficulty removing the Taliban.

~:smoking:

rvg

11-03-2009, 16:54

The most we can do is support the locals help themselves. Countries that are going to do something include Russia on the Northern border, China to the east, India and Pakistan to the South....

You might want to take a look at the map of Afghanistan. Russia is nowhere near, neither is India. As for China, its border with Afghanistan a tiny (probably 20-30 mile) strip in the most remote mountains which are populated mostly by snow leopards.
In short, we don't have anyone there can is willing or capable of actually keeping the Taliban in check, thus we have to do it ourselves. Better bleed in the Afghan mountains than on the streets of NYC.

rory_20_uk

11-03-2009, 17:10

I never said they were near. You mentioned that the local countries disliked us. So I mentioned the ones that dislike the Taliban and related organisations more than they dislike us.

I'd be much happier if the other -stans would decide not to become inward looking caphilates, but the countries I mentioned are where the buck would stop.

As far as I am aware, NYC is even further away. I don't need an atlas to know that...

~:smoking:

Beskar

11-03-2009, 17:12

Why haven't they trained up an Afghan army yet?

Banquo's Ghost

11-03-2009, 17:14

Interesting, considering that today the Pakistani Taliban has plenty of foot soldiers and sympathizers from across the Central Asia. Uzbeks are especially numerous in the Taliban's ranks, and after finishing off Afghanistan/Pakistan they would love nothing more than to do the same with Uzbekistan. But no, let's go ahead and think that Taliban will respect borders and agreements.

Please (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jyYG2aSkam4juOEbFgSEcI_2D1kw). :book:

The occupation of Afghanistan has attracted loonies from all sorts of places, but they are not significant. Hardly the "raging fire" you claim is being contained.

Indeed, the Afghan Taliban is a mish-mash of all sorts of rebels - as insurgencies of that country have always been. The allegiances form and reform on the basis of money, patronage and opportunity to kill a few invaders. Not really the stuff of The Caliphate ®.

HopAlongBunny

11-03-2009, 17:52

What gives us the right to do that? Considering the massive effort involved there are many other countries who'se problems are tiny in comparison and the money would be better spent removing corruption, improving facilities, siting clinics etc etc - all the same things, without the fighting and the bombing - and genuinely wanted by the locals!
~:smoking:

yes

Pannonian

11-03-2009, 18:33

The invasion of Afghanistan was all about avenging 911. Which is fair enough. If one wants to be respected, if one is attacked like that, it's fair game to go to the origin of the attacks, and smash things up a bit. The problem is extending that mission to incorporate other parameters of success, but still using the justification of 911. If success is to be measured by cutting down on the opium supply, there are other, more effective ways of doing so than building a democracy in an environment that is hostile to that. If success is to be measured by cutting down on the fundie export supply, there are other, more effective ways of doing so than blowing things up in a place that is nothing more than a battlefield for them. For the former, legalising and controlling opium-derived products is far cheaper, far more effective and beneficial than blowing things up. For the latter, it's Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that you should be looking at, not Afghanistan.

rvg

11-03-2009, 18:37

Please (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jyYG2aSkam4juOEbFgSEcI_2D1kw). :book:

That link just underscores my point that Central Asian militants are actively participating in the Taliban insurgency.

Husar

11-03-2009, 18:42

Rory seems to be going for a similar approach to that used by special forces teams in the mountains of Vietnam that worked quite well in terms of keeping the Vietcong out.

Strike For The South

11-03-2009, 18:43

Time for us to leave, and if this happens again raze the country with some really cool exsplosives we spend so much money on.

I have no time for terrorists but I have even less time for people whom aern't willing to work with us and who simply are trying to get there peice of the opium pie.

rory_20_uk

11-03-2009, 19:43

Rory seems to be going for a similar approach to that used by special forces teams in the mountains of Vietnam that worked quite well in terms of keeping the Vietcong out.

And in Malaysia in the 1950's. You'll never completely win in this manner, but it shifts the focus from them being hunted, rather than our troops being picked off.

~:smoking:

Subotan

11-03-2009, 20:02

In 2001, Iran was a significant ally to the US precisely because they don't like the Taliban either.

IIRC, Iran detests the Taliban, partly because the Taliban hate them for being Shia, and partly because the Taliban slaughtered many Iranian diplomats in a Valentine's-Day-Massacre-style prior to 9/11.

Major Robert Dump

11-03-2009, 21:51

I say let those whackjobs in South America handle their own problems. The last thing we want after messing things up there is for all those Afghans trying to sneak across the border because they think we owe them something, like all the Koreans did after Vietnam

Sarmatian

11-03-2009, 23:10

Seamus Fermanagh

11-03-2009, 23:29

Choices, choices...

Banquo's key point -- and an instructive one it is -- is that there are few Afghanis. There are Tajiks and Pashtun's etc. and they are, in the main, happy in their tribal warlordism. They've been keeping things going in this fashion for at least three millenia.

Can we change all this? Sure.

Can we do so in a fashion that will be: fast enough to suit our 24-hour news cycle medias?
Bloodless enough (among our own) to prevent war weariness/"chuck it all-ism?"
Boodless enough (among the locals) not to be renowned for our brutality?
Honorably enough to suit the democratic ideals the West espouses?

I submit that the answer to these last 4 questions would be a "no" on 2-4 of them. That being the case, we need to sauve-qui-peut. The imposition of your foreign policy preference over that of the locals in question depends on your willingness to bleed for it. If you aren't, then piss off.

Warlordism will return, as will the Taliban, as will terror training centers. We can then wait for our new security procedures to become dulled by decades of use, and then look forward to the next large-scale kick in the unmentionables.

Have a nice day.

LittleGrizzly

11-04-2009, 00:57

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-04-2009, 01:01

Ah, so a modern "domino theory". Worked well last time, eh?

It wasn't exactly untrue, if we're talking about the same thing. Of course it had obvious imperfections but it's rare you find a political theory that doesn't.

Pannonian

11-04-2009, 01:51

From what everyone hear has been saying the only way to setup at least a basic democracy with basic rights is rule with an iron fist for 20-30 year whilst spending heavily on infrastruture, education and job creation. Education to include some basic adult education also. Possibly would need to bribe the warlords out of exsistence and maybe satisfy the more extreme members of the population by making the push to all the rights we enjoy here a slow gradual one...

Or is there some easier way to leave a somewhat decent stable country behind ?
AFAIK, historically western democracy only works if there's a large enough middle class to support it. The existence of a middle class doesn't guarantee it of course, but the things that go with it, such as stability, prosperity and education, are a minimum for a democracy to be viable. Afghanistan isn't anywhere near this level of social development. See China for an example of a country that's moving in that direction, but also lacks certain aspects of a society that can sustain democracy. In these cases, absolute rule with a mind to moving towards relinquishing power would be the most beneficial method of government, either as a benevolent dictatorship or an occupational government.

Centurion1

11-04-2009, 03:46

Why haven't they trained up an Afghan army yet?

tried, but its corrupt, and all the petty warlords (or not so petty) want their little slice of the troops and american money and want to maintain their militias, or private armies.....

should have totally centralized the government and gotten rid of the warlords even the "good" ones.

before you all jump on me i realize that such a project would be nigh on impossible in the Afghanistan political culture. that would be.....

and i wouldnt say the taliban overthrew the mujhadeen more like conquered the majority of the tribes. Afghanis liked them for a little even, until they realized after the intial minor sbabilization of having a dominant power... of what that dominant power really believed in....

Banquo's Ghost

11-04-2009, 09:01

Can we change all this? Sure.

Can we do so in a fashion that will be: fast enough to suit our 24-hour news cycle medias?
Bloodless enough (among our own) to prevent war weariness/"chuck it all-ism?"
Boodless enough (among the locals) not to be renowned for our brutality?
Honorably enough to suit the democratic ideals the West espouses?

I submit that the answer to these last 4 questions would be a "no" on 2-4 of them. That being the case, we need to sauve-qui-peut. The imposition of your foreign policy preference over that of the locals in question depends on your willingness to bleed for it. If you aren't, then piss off.

The question you didn't ask is: what right does the West have to impose anything on any group of people by force? Most of our ancestors, at one time or another, have fought for our own rights of self-determination. We value liberty above all. It is not up to us to create nation states.

Warlordism will return, as will the Taliban, as will terror training centers. We can then wait for our new security procedures to become dulled by decades of use, and then look forward to the next large-scale kick in the unmentionables.

Have a nice day.

Bleak, but rather melodramatic, old friend. The US has been remarkably lucky since 9-11 - partly through effort, largely because of the borders. I've said before, it would take me a few weeks to paralyse the US with traditional terrorism techniques (cross reference to about two years ago, Echelon old boy, purely hypothesis for the sake of illumination) - soft target fertiliser bombing, sniper attacks, backed up with 60% hoax calls to mix it all up. Crikey, the weaponry one would need is readily available in supermarkets and agricultural stores. I'd need a team of around three cells of three men each. One might even be able to recruit a couple of loonies sufficiently barking to pop themselves off as a suicide bomb or two in a mall. A bit of medical waste and dirty bombs would be lighting up football stadia like the fourth of July. Particularly now, the right would turn on their president like rabid wolves and the country would be practically in a state of civil war for years.

This is idiotically easy to do. The reasons it is not being done is a) al-Q'aeda is not the mastermind force it is made out to be. b) Islamicist terrorists are religious nut-jobs who constrain themselves by mindset. c) Any aims, such as they are, tend to be towards their own countries first, whilst achieving an almost mythical woolliness of purpose because of the aforesaid mindset. d) They are so stupid they only really long for the spectacular, rather than realising terrorism to achieve something needs to terrify pretty regularly, and every citizen needs to worry every day. (Of course, our own governments have been taking care of that one for them). There is also the fact that western security services are now much better at discovering plots and potential perpetrators.

It has practically nothing to do with "terror training centres" or warlordism. Yemen and Somalia are both failed states full of opportunity for these centres to migrate. The reason that only very few have set up shop there is that Pakistan's ISS doesn't have clout. Yet the West has bankrolled the ISS for decades. If terrorism needed training centres, there's plenty of places less dangerous to go than Afghanistan. (Saudi Arabia has some of the best equipped, for example, also paid for by our money).

In truth, the biggest blow made against al-Q'aeda to date has not involved bombs, but accountants. Just as Al-Capone (you see what I did there :wink:) was brought low by accountancy, so are the terrorists running out of money. Money buys friends - it's remarkable how quickly chaps go off The Caliphate ® when it has no cash.

Yes, security will slacken and one day, a mistake will be made. The only connection this will have with Afghanistan is that the vicious clown that perpetrates the atrocity will be nursing a hatred of the West because someone killed his aunt with a drone at a wedding.

Beskar

11-04-2009, 09:30

If you really want to create a stable country, find the Stalin of Afghanistan and put him to work. It would be bloodly, messing and very undemocratic, but it will get the job done. This Stalin pretty much does this -

From what everyone hear has been saying the only way to setup at least a basic democracy with basic rights is rule with an iron fist for 20-30 year whilst spending heavily on infrastruture, education and job creation. Education to include some basic adult education also. Possibly would need to bribe the warlords out of exsistence and maybe satisfy the more extreme members of the population by making the push to all the rights we enjoy here a slow gradual one...

However, the biggest problem with this, is also this -

Can we change all this? Sure.

Can we do so in a fashion that will be: fast enough to suit our 24-hour news cycle medias?
Bloodless enough (among our own) to prevent war weariness/"chuck it all-ism?"
Boodless enough (among the locals) not to be renowned for our brutality?
Honorably enough to suit the democratic ideals the West espouses?

You could also do the biblical version, which is kill every male you find in the country, import a bunch of your own males to take their place. However, you will end up with international condemnation and in several international courts.

HoreTore

11-04-2009, 10:31

Beskar

11-04-2009, 10:47

But that is against American interests !?%&**@~#

You wasn't meant to point that out.

tibilicus

11-04-2009, 11:33

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8341659.stm

Uh oh. :no:

This wont win anyone over in supporting the war.

Beskar

11-04-2009, 13:39

I hear the Right-wing going "Just NUKE THEM!!!!!" as we speak.

rvg

11-04-2009, 14:28

He was already there. He's called the Taliban.

Staliban!

KukriKhan

11-04-2009, 14:43

The invasion of Afghanistan was all about avenging 911. Which is fair enough. If one wants to be respected, if one is attacked like that, it's fair game to go to the origin of the attacks, and smash things up a bit. The problem is extending that mission to incorporate other parameters of success, but still using the justification of 911.

Indeed. Three sentences summing up where we were, and where we are ("we" being US + NATO).

Declare victory (and let everybody snicker). Hammer out a Status of Forces Agreement, and Overflight and Landing Rights protocols with Kabul. Thank our NATO allies profusely. And come home.

When/If Osama b.L. pops up, nail him. Continue drying up terror money. This could all be accomplished by New Year's Eve.

Furunculus

11-04-2009, 14:56

I hear the Right-wing going "Just NUKE THEM!!!!!" as we speak.

why do you hear that?

about the most i'd support is a declaration of targetted military retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack that originates from afghanistan.............. if we chose to exit the place.

i.e. "while its generally frowned upon to chuck cruise missiles into other peoples countries, you don't have a monopoly on violence in your own country, and you don't have a monopoly on exporting violence to other countries, therefore you aren't a functioning nation-state so we'll deal with terrorists that attack us ourselves."

Beskar

11-04-2009, 15:27

*rubbish post*

HoreTore

11-04-2009, 15:39

why do you hear that?

about the most i'd support is a declaration of targetted military retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack that originates from afghanistan.............. if we chose to exit the place.

i.e. "while its generally frowned upon to chuck cruise missiles into other peoples countries, you don't have a monopoly on violence in your own country, and you don't have a monopoly on exporting violence to other countries, therefore you aren't a functioning nation-state so we'll deal with terrorists that attack us ourselves."

That terrorism is somehow a treath is the biggest scam the world has ever seen.

rvg

11-04-2009, 16:08

why do you hear that?

about the most i'd support is a declaration of targetted military retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack that originates from afghanistan.............. if we chose to exit the place.

i.e. "while its generally frowned upon to chuck cruise missiles into other peoples countries, you don't have a monopoly on violence in your own country, and you don't have a monopoly on exporting violence to other countries, therefore you aren't a functioning nation-state so we'll deal with terrorists that attack us ourselves."

IF we get attacked again, then it will be time to perform some surface nuclear testing.

HoreTore

11-04-2009, 16:16

IF we get attacked again, then it will be time to perform some surface nuclear testing.

Because...

- It wouldn't cause much damage to any terrorists?
- It would kill a bunch of completely innocent civilians?
- It would kill the enviroment?

rvg

11-04-2009, 16:50

Because...

- It wouldn't cause much damage to any terrorists?
- It would kill a bunch of completely innocent civilians?
- It would kill the enviroment?

It would put the fear of God into any country stupid enough to host terrorists.

Beskar

11-04-2009, 16:59

There you go Furunculus. :laugh4:

HoreTore

11-04-2009, 17:23

It would put the fear of God into any country stupid enough to host terrorists.

So... By demonstrating that you're incapable of hurting anyone who's hurting you, you think that people are going to be afraid of hurting you...?

Logic fails.

rvg

11-04-2009, 17:32

So... By demonstrating that you're incapable of hurting anyone who's hurting you, you think that people are going to be afraid of hurting you...?

Logic fails.

Logic succeeds. You host terrorists --> you get nuked.

LittleGrizzly

11-04-2009, 17:39

The war on terror, a battle for hearts and minds largely... will not be won by nuclear weaponary, you may scare one or two or the more moderate national leaders but they are the kind of people that could be swayed without insanity... but you will be handing the terrorists thier dream...

Don't you think Al-Qaeda would like nothing more than a mushroom cloud or two in the middle east... if they could get a decent number of recruits out of the regular crap we cause in the middle east imagine after we supply them that propaganda!

A Very Super Market

11-04-2009, 17:49

So countries get nuked for being located in the Middle East? The 9/11 bombings were done by Saudis, and there hasn't been much reaction to them. Hell, weren't the bombings in the London and Madrid done by nationals of both countries? Nuke 'em too, they've got terrorists.

HoreTore

11-04-2009, 17:54

Logic succeeds. You host terrorists --> you get nuked.

So.... Just what are you proposing to do if the nation in question are unable to defeat said terrorists? Bomb 'em just for show?

Beskar

11-04-2009, 18:02

There are terrorists in America...

Let's give him the red button while he thinks it over.

rvg

11-04-2009, 18:05

So.... Just what are you proposing to do if the nation in question are unable to defeat said terrorists? Bomb 'em just for show?

Not just for show. Utterly obliterate them so that they serve as an example to everyone else.

HoreTore

11-04-2009, 18:08

Not just for show. Utterly obliterate them so that they serve as an example to everyone else.

And again, that will accomplish....what? The nation you're proposing to bomb is AGAINST terrorism already...

rvg

11-04-2009, 18:11

And again, that will accomplish....what? The nation you're proposing to bomb is AGAINST terrorism already...

It will show very vividly, that "being against terrorism" while hosting terrorists is not a good idea.

rory_20_uk

11-04-2009, 18:11

Not just for show. Utterly obliterate them so that they serve as an example to everyone else.

Oh, where to start:

It will anger far more than it will cow into submission
There's not the infrastructure to supply the number of bombers required. Surrounding countries might question hundreds of heavy bombers (does America have them these days?)
In ideal terrain, killing everyone is difficult. In mountainous terrain it's almost impossible.
Any country that undertakes it would be viewed as a pariah by the world. The long term damage is going to be worse than the problem.

rvg

11-04-2009, 18:15

Oh, where to start:

It will anger far more than it will cow into submission
There's not the infrastructure to supply the number of bombers required. Surrounding countries might question hundreds of heavy bombers (does America have them these days?)
In ideal terrain, killing everyone is difficult. In mountainous terrain it's almost impossible.
Any country that undertakes it would be viewed as a pariah by the world. The long term damage is going to be worse than the problem.

Let's see.

* It will anger far more than it will cow into submission
Then we'll bomb some more. The dead can be as angry as they wanna be.

* There's not the infrastructure to supply the number of bombers required. Surrounding countries might question hundreds of heavy bombers (does America have them these days?)
A few tactical nukes or one strategic depending on the situation.

* In ideal terrain, killing everyone is difficult. In mountainous terrain it's almost impossible.
Radiation ignores terrain.

* Any country that undertakes it would be viewed as a pariah by the world. The long term damage is going to be worse than the problem.
Pariah? If self-defense is wrong then I don't wanna be right.

A Very Super Market

11-04-2009, 18:16

rvg doesn't appear to be acknowledging anyone on this thread, so I think it's safe to assume that ignoring him would be a good idea. Retorting to hear the exact same phrase doesn't seem to be a good use of time.

Azathoth

11-05-2009, 03:14

* It will anger far more than it will cow into submission
Then we'll bomb some more. The dead can be as angry as they wanna be.

* There's not the infrastructure to supply the number of bombers required. Surrounding countries might question hundreds of heavy bombers (does America have them these days?)
A few tactical nukes or one strategic depending on the situation.

* In ideal terrain, killing everyone is difficult. In mountainous terrain it's almost impossible.
Radiation ignores terrain.

* Any country that undertakes it would be viewed as a pariah by the world. The long term damage is going to be worse than the problem.
Pariah? If self-defense is wrong then I don't wanna be right.

Maybe the rest of the world should think about nuking America, for self defense?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-05-2009, 03:26

HoreTore

11-05-2009, 08:46

I wouldn't have objected to a well-placed nuclear weapon or two blowing up over the mountains where we knew that Osama was hiding with fellow al-Qaeda insurgents, but I think the Russians and Chinese might have.

The thing is, EMFM, we don't know where OBL is hiding... And that mountain range is quite large. The only way to get OBL, if he's even hiding in those mountains, with a nuclear bomb, would be to carpet bomb the entire mountain range.

And that, my friend, is insanity.

Beskar

11-05-2009, 08:58

Didn't Osama Bin Laden only have two or so years to live, at 9/11 ?

Husar

11-05-2009, 10:02

Uhm, wouldn't he like, survive the bomb, if he was hiding in some underground tunnel/bunker system unless perhaps it was dropped very close to him?

LittleGrizzly

11-05-2009, 16:23

OBL was a very unwell man 8 years back... I can't imagine he's spent the last 8 years running from cave to cave whilst needing to be hooked up to a dialysis machine (I assume for a few hours a day) either the running killed him or he found somewhere nice to stay with friends a while ago...

Needless to say anyway OBL is nothing more than a figurehead... so that trumps rvg's insanity by some way... at least he wasn't too specific so we could imagine some terrorist filled country (or at least a good number) you on the other hand are willing to nuke a country on the basis of getting a figurehead nothing more...

Im starting to figure out why people are so worried about Iran getting nukes now though... If you (in your view) 'reasonable' people can use nukes so casually (hypothetically at least) then imagine what the (in your view) insane Iranians would do with nuclear weapons...

Fragony

11-05-2009, 16:49

Im starting to figure out why people are so worried about Iran getting nukes now though... If you (in your view) 'reasonable' people can use nukes so casually (hypothetically at least) then imagine what the (in your view) insane Iranians would do with nuclear weapons...

I don't think they are reasonable, their national government is a farce the mullahs are pulling the strings, and I don't think they are bluffing I think we are truly dealing with religious nutjobs here.

Edit, oh and my masterplan, cut of the middcleclass with a full trade block, China isn't that important yet, timber. Anyways, did I already mention I like these protesting iranians.

Furunculus

11-05-2009, 18:12

There you go Furunculus. :laugh4:
:laugh4: LOL, is there where i should complain about the use of stereotypes? hehe.

That terrorism is somehow a treath is the biggest scam the world has ever seen.

not sure i can decipher that response, dude............. :beam:

HoreTore

11-05-2009, 18:16

not sure i can decipher that response, dude............. :beam:

Let's face it, will any terrorists ever be able to take control of our governments? They can kill maybe a few thousands a year, that's a rather irrelevant number.

The only threat terrorism poses, is our draconian ways of dealing with it.

Beskar

11-05-2009, 18:46

:laugh4: LOL, is there where i should complain about the use of stereotypes? hehe.:

What amazes me more is that some one replied to you, with that political alignment and with that same exact view. It really makes the whole affair :laugh4: LOL.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-05-2009, 20:45

The question you didn't ask is: what right does the West have to impose anything on any group of people by force? Most of our ancestors, at one time or another, have fought for our own rights of self-determination. We value liberty above all. It is not up to us to create nation states.

Actually, I had thought this question was subsumed by the fourth in my list, referencing Western ideals etc. As you rightly point out, any efforts at nation building, however well intentioned, are far more readily justified in terms of national security interests than they are in terms of promoting self-determination (that being at least partly oxymoronic).

Bleak, but rather melodramatic, old friend....In truth, the biggest blow made against al-Q'aeda to date has not involved bombs, but accountants. Just as Al-Capone (you see what I did there :wink:) was brought low by accountancy, so are the terrorists running out of money. Money buys friends - it's remarkable how quickly chaps go off The Caliphate ® when it has no cash.

I agree that the accounting war has been AT LEAST as effective if not more than military efforts. You had a number of other interesting points. I will confess to a moment of melodrama. I get upset by stupid actions on the part of my nation. Foremost among these include the use of force -- and blood -- stupidly. If you are going to put that most precious resource on the line, then you go in to win (like a million US ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq each to actually suppress the problem) or you don't go. Of course, that would require political leadership that was willing to make hard choices, so it isn't going to happen. I wonder, given all of the examples we can cite, why so may TW players think the AI's diplomacy is that bad...

Yes, security will slacken and one day, a mistake will be made. The only connection this will have with Afghanistan is that the vicious clown that perpetrates the atrocity will be nursing a hatred of the West because someone killed his aunt with a drone at a wedding.

There is much truth in this Banquo. However, if you accept that collateral killings such as the hypothetical example you cite are inevitable, the corallary is that military action can never be used -- which begets its own host of problems.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-05-2009, 20:50

Let's face it, will any terrorists ever be able to take control of our governments? They can kill maybe a few thousands a year, that's a rather irrelevant number.

The only threat terrorism poses, is our draconian ways of dealing with it.

And traffic deaths kill thousands upon thousands per year. So, in order to not be "draconian" with our own freedoms, we should NOT have any laws regarding drunk driving, or seatbelts, or child restraints, or airbags?

I cannot simply accept the idea of terrorists killing a few thousand of us a year while I simply read the newspaper and make idle comments on Spain not having its usual death toll this year. I CANNOT simply dismiss it as the cost of doing business. That you, apparently, can do so revulses me.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-05-2009, 22:01

The thing is, EMFM, we don't know where OBL is hiding... And that mountain range is quite large. The only way to get OBL, if he's even hiding in those mountains, with a nuclear bomb, would be to carpet bomb the entire mountain range.

And that, my friend, is insanity.

If I recall correctly, we did know where he was, and fought a battle where he managed to get away from American special forces. This was years ago, of course, I don't think we know where he is now.

Beskar

11-05-2009, 22:03

I remember how the News Reporters were able to meet Osama Bin Laden, but the American Military couldn't (very soon after 9/11)

HoreTore

11-05-2009, 22:56

And traffic deaths kill thousands upon thousands per year. So, in order to not be "draconian" with our own freedoms, we should NOT have any laws regarding drunk driving, or seatbelts, or child restraints, or airbags?

I cannot simply accept the idea of terrorists killing a few thousand of us a year while I simply read the newspaper and make idle comments on Spain not having its usual death toll this year. I CANNOT simply dismiss it as the cost of doing business. That you, apparently, can do so revulses me.

It's the lesser of two evils in my mind. I would much rather have a few thousands die each year from terrorists instead of the hundreds of thousands we've killed in our two anti-terror wars.

Simple math, really. I pick the lowest number of dead people.

Banquo's Ghost

11-06-2009, 08:39

I agree that the accounting war has been AT LEAST as effective if not more than military efforts. You had a number of other interesting points. I will confess to a moment of melodrama. I get upset by stupid actions on the part of my nation. Foremost among these include the use of force -- and blood -- stupidly. If you are going to put that most precious resource on the line, then you go in to win (like a million US ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq each to actually suppress the problem) or you don't go. Of course, that would require political leadership that was willing to make hard choices, so it isn't going to happen. I wonder, given all of the examples we can cite, why so may TW players think the AI's diplomacy is that bad...

Your last sentence had me smiling. :beam:

The rest of your paragraph is exactly my position too. I've gone to war and seen my comrades die - but for a defined purpose, and with (just) sufficient resource to achieve it. Most importantly, with an iron political will behind the decision. I've also sat bemused in a meaningless, seemingly endless conflict against terrorism whilst politicians pontificate to hide their cowardice.

The military option should always be the last. I can understand the drive to attack Afghanistan militarily because it would have been an extremely brave and capable president who could have resisted that demand after 9-11. However, for a fraction of the cost, one or other of the Taliban could have been bribed to hand over bin Laden or assorted warlords set after him. The Talib were only holding out for a better price, but because we don't understand how things work, we mistook their refusal as a refusal. I suspect enough gold would have had bin Laden in an American court and thence frying nicely by the end of the next year.

However, this would have been a politically brave choice, so going in militarily, knocking the Taliban about a bit and then withdrawing would have sent the appropriate message. Then getting the pocket book out to keep the warlords fighting each other and paying for every al-Q'aeda head brought on a platter would have kept them happy and busy. I don't understand why the nation-building foolishness came in - except as a result of neo-con lunacy drunk on the Iraq plans.

At the same time, security services have got better and better at working together against the terrorists. The accountancy example is just one to demonstrate how we have in fact, got a lot safer. However, we will never be entirely safe, but politicians won't say this. Continued collateral killings and occupations make us far less safe, and this isn't said either.

There is much truth in this Banquo. However, if you accept that collateral killings such as the hypothetical example you cite are inevitable, the corallary is that military action can never be used -- which begets its own host of problems.

The corollary doesn't follow. There have been many effective wars where the death of civilians has caused resentment, but not terrorism. They have usually been short, with a defined purpose that finally benefitted the local populace so forgiveness could follow. Generational wars of occupation bring deep bitterness that acquires its own mythos - and takes generations to dissipate.

Finally, by their very foundation and nature, the United States are not an imperial power. To subjugate somewhere like Afghanistan, not only would you need a million men, but the will to inflict cruelties and wickedness for a great many years. Soviet Russia couldn't even subjugate those brave people and they had a real track record in the necessary skill-set. Jefferson was right.