Democracy means voting for your friendly neighborhood dictator

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/as...ion/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/as...ion/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

---

Finding out who has the most popular support in Afghanistan is quite simply impossible, due to the extreme amounts of cheating done by Karzai.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

What if they want to live in a dictatorship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

What if they want to live in a dictatorship?

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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...T2009092602905

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

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

---

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

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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.

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 -

Quote:

---

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 -

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

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

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

You wasn't meant to point that out.

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

Uh oh. :no:

This wont win anyone over in supporting the war.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

Staliban!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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."

*rubbish post*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

There you go Furunculus. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

There are terrorists in America...

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