Democracy means voting for your friendly neighborhood dictator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

[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, right? And who their biggest backers are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ummm ... you do know where the Taliban came from, right? And who their biggest backers are?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

---

Uhm....

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

Oh wait, they didn't....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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:

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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. :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 ®.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Please. :book:

---

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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

---

:laugh4::laugh4: Great

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.

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

Quote:

---

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.