The Great Game, another loss

[Koga No Goshi]

Afghanistan has never been a country. I has always been a collection of warring tribes and sects. Even the ruthless Taliban never controlled the entire territory. All the Americans (and subsequent Nato operations) did was chase them from power and install various rivals.

The Americans don't 'own' it, nor does Nato. That's just Colin Powell's barnyard sale nonsense. World politics is not a barnyard sale.

If you want to blame anyone for lack of forethought, blame the Taliban.

U.S. war planners should have taken this into account, and had correspondigly reflective ground strategies and exit strategies.

Yes or no?

[rotorgun]

The whole problem that we created during this wretched conflict is that we took our eye off the ball by letting up the pressure on Bin Laden and his followers, along with the Taliban supporters. After the debacle of Tora Bora we just let them slip away into Pakistan by failing to block the mountain passes leading into the country. This was clearly a Bush administration mistake, as they were so focused on how they could spin the whole thing to blame Saddam Hussein somehow. Now, because we have made this a problematical situation, to say the least, and it is going to be much harder everyone wants to pack it in and give up. Shame on us all if we do.

Listen, there is no doubt that going to Iraq was a colossal blunder; we have made this bed and must now sleep in it. The problem still remains, what should we do about the resurgent Taliban and Al Queda? I agree with many of you here that everything must be done to minimize innocent casualties. The problem is that these insurgents are like a cancerous growth inside a sick body. To remove a tumor will involve destroying some good tissue as well, no? It is unfortunate that this will happen, but to show mercy in this case is folly. Eradication from the face of the earth is the only way IMHO. More soldiers, an agreement with Pakistan for military access and assistance, and a shifting of priorities from Iraq will all help, but a willingness to be utterly ruthless when required is also needed to win. Believe me when I say that it is really the quickest way to ending this madness.

[Adrian II]

U.S. war planners should have taken this into account, and had correspondigly reflective ground strategies and exit strategies.

Yes or no?

They did, and they had.

It may take ten years before Afghanistan gets its act together and create some sort of sustainable central government. That's not because of lack of American planning. You can't blame the Americans for Afghan unwillingness, stupidity and backwardness.

And it's no use for western powers to invest in a society that doesn't want to be one, to reconstruct roads for warlords and to rebuild powerplants, organise education or train a police force in the sole interest of a bunch of corrupt tribal leaders.

Let them rot in their own misery.

[Tribesman]

Invade Pakistan, cut it up again, put a fence around the unworkable north-western part and throw away the key.

Great idea , invade it with what exactly ?
I like the fence , thats good , who is going to man it though and who is going to pay ?

Let them rot in their own misery.

The problem there is that leaving them to rot is what helped the Taliban in the first place , allowing Afghanistan to return to its failed state status is just inviting another terrorist safe haven isn't it .

[Adrian II]

Great idea, invade it with what exactly ?

Nato forces, led by the US. They're invading Pakistan already, aren't they?

I like the fence, that's good, who is going to man it though and who is going to pay?

Western taxpayers, as usual.

The problem there is that leaving them to rot is what helped the Taliban in the first place, allowing Afghanistan to return to its failed state status is just inviting another terrorist safe haven isn't it .

The alternative -- re-arming Afghans, helping them to (re)construct the trappings of a modern central state and giving them a sense of purpose -- might accomplish the exact same thing: create another terrorist enclave supported by Pakistani armed forces, intelligence and drug lords.

Look at the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. What did they accomplish? Or the reconstruction efforts in eastern Congo. Or in Somalia. What did they accomplish? The notion that they accomplished anything useful in the sense of 'nation-building' is pure boll poppycock.

[Tribesman]

Nato forces, led by the US. They're invading Pakistan already, aren't they?

Yeah right

Western taxpayers, as usual.

I think you will find that western taxpayers are screwed at the moment and ain't gonna be able to stump up the cash or credit for such an endeavour .

[Adrian II]

Yeah right

Are you short on arguments again?

I think you will find that western taxpayers are screwed at the moment and ain't gonna be able to stump up the cash or credit for such an endeavour .

Oh, that's what people always say when faced with workable ideas.

Politicians shouldn't listen to the people. They should tell the people that they can't have (inter)national security on the cheap, or if they think they can, they should find other leaders asap to implement it because cheap security policies sure as hell ain't gonna work.

[Tribesman]

Are you short on arguments again?

Nope , your position is just laughable .
America and the coilition of the bribed couldn't provide enough troops to do Iraq , America and Isaf cannot provide enough troops to work Afghanistan , and now you propose that they can invade and partition a country of nearly 200million people that has lots of long established thoroughly entrenched terrorist groups .
Have you been down the coffee shop eating funny cakes ?

[Koga No Goshi]

They did, and they had.

It may take ten years before Afghanistan gets its act together and create some sort of sustainable central government. That's not because of lack of American planning. You can't blame the Americans for Afghan unwillingness, stupidity and backwardness.

Of course I can! Are you saying an intelligent invasion strategy is "the people we conquer had better be ready and willing to adopt whatever sort of government we tell them to assemble?"

That's mighty hubristic planning. And not a shock when it fails to work.

[Adrian II]

Nope , your position is just laughable .
America and the coilition of the bribed couldn't provide enough troops to do Iraq , America and Isaf cannot provide enough troops to work Afghanistan , and now you propose that they can invade and partition a country of nearly 200million people that has lots of long established thoroughly entrenched terrorist groups .
Have you been down the coffee shop eating funny cakes ?

Are you drunk again?

Seriously, in 2001 we were told that the Americans could never 'do' Afghanistan because the Russians never could. Yet they did 'do' Afghanistan inside of 4 weeks.

Same with Iraq in 2003. Remember we were told that the house to house fighting against Saddam's troops would take months, nay years? Yet they 'did' Iraq inside of 10 days.

The notion that either country could be rebuilt into a functioning democracy was a mistake, or a white lie if you want. Even with the best of efforts it couldn't succeed. As Francis Fukuyama has pointed out in State Building (2004) formal elections aren't enough to constitute a working democracy. It requires free, peaceful and enduring public debate backed up by free media, it requires security, functioning public services, an independent judiciary, a functioning neutral police force and an army that follows political orders. None of these can be established without the will of the people, or a large majority of them. This will was clearly absent in Iraq. That's why in the first 'free' Iraqi election everyone voted for their own ethnicity or religion, out of fear instead of confidence in the future of the country.

Same, mutatis mutandis, in Afghanistan. Your illusion that these countries could be somehow' rebuilt' into functioning democracies is much more costly and much more dangerous than my view that they should be left to rot, in order to contain the potential damage which their unworthy or fanatic leaders could cause.

[Adrian II]

Are you saying an intelligent invasion strategy is "the people we conquer had better be ready and willing to adopt whatever sort of government we tell them to assemble?"

Are you saying that warfare is intelligent, that its consequences are calculable and that its planning must be foolproof? Dream on.

War should be the measure of last resort. And for good reason: it is not clean or surgical, it is cruel and destructive, and it is not guaranteed to turn the world into a better place for everyone.

The Afghans suffer primarily from their own incompetence and backwardness. It is neither the legal nor the moral duty of Americans to take responsibility for their suffering. It is their duty to prevent more massive terrorist attacks on American soil. Sure, they could have done a better job in Afghanistan. Other Nato countries could as well, if they'd had the guts and sense to invest more troops and means into the operation. There is always ground for improvement. Maybe the Afghan people could take the initiative to improve their situation. Instead of blaming everyone else for their self-inflicted wounds, they could actually start building a country. How about that, eh?

[Koga No Goshi]

If I could emote a hand waving away, I would put it here.

[Adrian II]

If I could emote a hand waving away, I would put it here.

If you had a good argument, you could consider putting it here instead of an inane put-down.

Do you know of any post-war arrangement or occupation that went according to the victor's pre-war planning?

[Koga No Goshi]

If you had a good argument, you could consider putting it here instead of an inane put-down.

Do you know of any post-war arrangement or occupation that went according to the victor's pre-war planning?

You don't have a good argument, you just have a vehement insistence that everything wrong in Afghanistan is the Afghanis' fault. You made a rant, nothing more.

[Adrian II]

You don't have a good argument, you just have a vehement insistence that everything wrong in Afghanistan is the Afghanis' fault. You made a rant, nothing more.

Stop the personal comments and come up with something substantial instead of mere contradictory statements.

For instance look at your own previous posts in this thread. You said about Iraq:

What is the U.S. struggling with in Iraq? With the same power divisions and old hatreds that Saddam's authoritarian regime kept in check, and the religious extremists now free to bloom who were ironfisted under Saddam's regime.

The idea of go in, absolutely gut every semblance of the existing power, and replace it with a McDemocracy Happy Meal transplant, is nice ideologically. But I do not see any rational reason to believe that it works and, even when it does, how long is it before a) we're back in there to save them from being toppled or b) we're back in there overthrowing whatever dictatorship took it over as soon as we left?

There you go. No rational planning could ever prevent this scenario. Nation building is a pipe-dream if the people concerned don' t want to be a nation. The thought of nation building shouldn't guide a war. War should be a measure of last resort to avert an existential threat to your country and way of life. It can not be a therapy for failed states.

[Incongruous]

Nato forces, led by the US. They're invading Pakistan already, aren't they?

Umm, well kinda, in an undeclared way, but to openly declare war on Pakistan would be suicidal for the West.We cannot even hold onto Iraq or Afghanistan, so what makes you think we can do Pakistan? Its frikin insane.

The West, through it rampant destruction of Afghanistan via such great things as high altitude bombings, to help them.

I would also point out that the Afghan government has been tripped up from the get-go, the funding Afghanistan gets for reconstruction is barely enough to cover govt. salaries, the US has also enforced the power of the warlords onto the country, in return of support against the Taliban. It just pathetic.

[Tribesman]

Seriously, in 2001 we were told that the Americans could never 'do' Afghanistan because the Russians never could. Yet they did 'do' Afghanistan inside of 4 weeks.

Same with Iraq in 2003. Remember we were told that the house to house fighting against Saddam's troops would take months, nay years? Yet they 'did' Iraq inside of 10 days.

Yeah and then what ?
It doesn't take a genius to go in destoy an army topple a regime and screw the place up does it , it just takes men and a lot of money .
But unless you are going to be able to improve the situation very significantly its a waste of time , improving the situation does take a genius and a lot of men and a hell of a lot of money . Not improving the situation very significantly means that you are going to have to go back in again and again and again which takes lots of men and lots of money and achieves bugger all .
The west has neither the men or the money to do the significant improvement , neither does it have the men or money to do the rinse and repeat cycle , that means what is being done is a complete waste of time that is achieving nothing worthwhile .

[Adrian II]

But unless you are going to be able to improve the situation very significantly its a waste of time

Not at all. 'Improving' Iraq or Afghanistan was never the rationale for these wars. Removing a threat to the U.S. was the rationale. In the case of Iraq it was nonsense and therefore a waste of lives, time and money. In the case of Afghanistan it was fully justified, as it was in certain previous wars.

The U.S. has always fought wars in its own interest, whether it was WWI, WWII, Korea of Vietnam. It didn't invade Germany in the spring of 1945 in order to 'improve the situation' in Germany. Nor did it go into Korea or Vietnam out of sheer altruism. Gerroffit, Tribesman. If and when the U.S. could establish democracy in countries with willing majorities (such as post-war Germany) it never failed to do so. But it was never its prime rationale for war, nor should it be, particularly in the case of unwilling peoples.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan so far the U.S. has stuck mainly to the law of occupation as spelled out in the 1907 Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Additional Protocol I. That's good enough. They made a mess of certain issues, it's true, mainly because they misjudged the mess they found when they went in. In both cases the attempts at nation building failed, as you and I can agree, because there was no basis for it.

Where we disagree is on the question whether the U.S. is legally and/or morally obliged to force democratic nationhood on unwilling peoples, to install a system of political representation, separation of executive and legal powers, the rule of law and the principle of national unity in a country where the majority doesn't want any of that. Should we blame the U.S. for failing to install it, or should we lay the blame primarily at the feet of that country, its political factions and leaders, its traditions and religions. I guess you know what my answer is.

[Tribesman]

Not at all. 'Improving' Iraq or Afghanistan was never the rationale for these wars. Removing a threat to the U.S. was the rationale. In the case of Iraq it was nonsense and therefore a waste of lives, time and money. In the case of Afghanistan it was fully justified, as it was in certain previous wars.

There lies the problem , why was afghanistan a threat ?
Is it because it was a failed state without law where nutters could gain power and other nutters could go to plan being even nuttier ?

[Adrian II]

There lies the problem , why was afghanistan a threat ?

You have been drinking.

[Strike For The South]

Wow. Adrian just utterly destroyed 3 native English speakers and not only that he echos my sentiments exactly. Adrian wins we may close this thread

[Louis VI the Fat]

He's back...

He's angry...

He's Winning...







Adrianator II
Judgement Day

Now playing in forums near you.
Rated PG-13

[Koga No Goshi]

Stop the personal comments and come up with something substantial instead of mere contradictory statements.

For instance look at your own previous posts in this thread. You said about Iraq:

What is the U.S. struggling with in Iraq? With the same power divisions and old hatreds that Saddam's authoritarian regime kept in check, and the religious extremists now free to bloom who were ironfisted under Saddam's regime.

The idea of go in, absolutely gut every semblance of the existing power, and replace it with a McDemocracy Happy Meal transplant, is nice ideologically. But I do not see any rational reason to believe that it works and, even when it does, how long is it before a) we're back in there to save them from being toppled or b) we're back in there overthrowing whatever dictatorship took it over as soon as we left?

There you go. No rational planning could ever prevent this scenario. Nation building is a pipe-dream if the people concerned don' t want to be a nation. The thought of nation building shouldn't guide a war. War should be a measure of last resort to avert an existential threat to your country and way of life. It can not be a therapy for failed states.

THAT IS WHY YOU DON'T GO IN UNDER THE DELUSION OF "INSTALLING DEMOCRACY!" And why you don't go in unless it's absolutely necessary! Now granted, in Afghanistan there was more we actually had to do there than Iraq. But clearly even if the goal was just to get the Taliban out of power and push them so far back that they could never recover, our strategy has failed.

However, saying that (1) Afghanistan like Iraq is a conglomerate of different ethnic groupings which have always warred and struggled against each other and can only be held together by a strongman/dictator and (2) we went in to get rid of said dictator and "install democracy" and reduce the risk of terrorism, but the fact that this plan is not working out is not our fault, it's all the Afghanis' fault

is contradictory.

[Jolt]

Curiously, the sensation I have from this thread is that Afghanistan is a losing battle for everyone but for drug farmers. :P

- NATO is losing because they can't defeat the Taliban stuck up in Pakistan (And some argue because NATO can't control every single meter of land in Afghanistan, therefore, it is losing)

- Afghanistan is losing because it can't control the territory wihch is ruled by local tribal leaders.

- The Taliban are losing because they are stuck in Pakistan and limit themselves to killing 10 soldiers and 5 civilians per month, as well as losing dozens of their own men trying to destroy jails and prisons and bring criminals back onto the streets.

- The Tribal Leaders aren't winning, having to delicately balance themselves over NATO and the Taliban.

- Drug Farmers continue to increase their output and win more money.

[Incongruous]

Wow. Adrian just utterly destroyed 3 native English speakers and not only that he echos my sentiments exactly. Adrian wins we may close this thread

Wow, Strike once again illustrates a deep undestanding of the issues, give this man a medal!!!

Again Adrian, how would the West be able to gather the men and money to invade and hold down a nation like Pakistan? 'Cause its gonna take a while to get all them nasty terrorists there.

[Strike For The South]

Wow, Strike once again illustrates a deep undestanding of the issues, give this man a medal!!!

Again Adrian, how would the West be able to gather the men and money to invade and hold down a nation like Pakistan? 'Cause its gonna take a while to get all them nasty terrorists there.

I would like Platinum please.

[Sarmatian]

Adrian won??? By stating that West is in Afghanistan to protect itself and not to install democracy and/or to help Afghanistan become a "country"? Gee, what a grand discovery, Columbus is put to shame.

The "we're there to protect ourselves and we don't care about anything else" is a failed policy. Like Tribesy asked, why was Afghanistan a threat in the first place. Precisely because it was not a real country, because it was divided between different tribal lords and fundamentalist government. And if something isn't done to change that situation, when US & Co army leaves it's going to revert to the exact same situation before the invasion, which was the reason for the initial invasion. Or maybe some people think that keeping troops there indefinitely is a viable solution...

Either you change something there and leave without having to worry about it in the future, or you're stuck with endless occupation of the country, because if you withdraw while Afghanistan is in the state it is now, you're gonna have a Taliban or Taliban-like regime taking power. I believe that keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely isn't an option. So, Tribesy hit the nail on the head - why was Afghanistan a threat?. You need to address the cause, and not the consequence.

[Tribesman]

You have been drinking.

yeah right
Ok for people who are really thick and for Adrian who is pretending to be .
What the hell are you on about ?
If the current or past circumstances are counterproductive to what you want then attemting to change the current result withiout sorting the present circumstances is just pissing into the wind .
Your premise seems to be that it can't be done so why bother unless they can be bothered to bother which ain't gonna matter much anyway but **** it we is gonna do it and anyone who doesn't believe that ****doesn't undrerstand it .

And no I ain't doing a president tribesman statement , afghanistan with all the ISS and the al-qaida bolox is just too far goneto be adressed without going inio essay style proportions

[Koga No Goshi]

Wow. Adrian just utterly destroyed 3 native English speakers and not only that he echos my sentiments exactly. Adrian wins we may close this thread

The world is very simple when "it's someone other than America's fault" is your explanation for absolutely everything, including our own foreign policy collapses.

[Tribesman]

Come on Koga , give Strike a chance to say how operations can be conducted so that Afghanistan(pakistan) can be forged into a place where hostility isn't rife and terrirusts can't find a resting place ?