How to win the war in Afghanistan

[WinterBorn]

Send the Ohio State Buckeyes there. Tyrelle Pryor would certainly overthrow the Taliban.

I laughed when I read this, Mott.

But unfortunately, what started as a joke about OSU was quickly turned to an international political debate.

But good post, Mott.

 

[Damocles]

You are 'assuming'. Just as we 'assume' the remnants of AQ are in Wadjiristan and we 'assume' the Pakistani forces are going after them. But, of course, they are going after them for a completely different reason.
Are you going to seek out and attack those that harboured your own home grown terrorists? Where do you stop? The guy who served them petrol? The guy who sold them food?
It all gets just a tad stupid.
The taliban have not and will not attack American soil. They do not pose a danger to America. they pose a danger to people who they see as standing in the way of a fundementalist Islamic state.
You should be directing your ire and mistrust at those that encourage you to believe the Taliban are your bogeymen. You are being manipulated just as you were when you invaded Iraq. Just as you were in Vietnam. Just as you were when you were told that Iran and N Korea constitute an axis of evil.
Jeeze Louise how are you so gullible?
Do you think the rest of the world shares your fears? Do you know there IS a 'rest of the world'?
I will repeat that I would gladly shoot every last one of the Taliban BUT that is not a decision that in anyway shape or form could be based on logic nor could it be a reason to treat them as a genuine enemy. (Except, that is, in their own country.)

I'm not assuming. That's just inane. Some people are willing to believe anything if they think it means they are "more open" than others. It doesn't make you "superior" to ignore direct evidence.

The only one assuming here is the person who assumes I am afraid, or that there is some bogeyman necessary to understand reality.

 

[Cypress]

Neither is your argument a logical one. To argue that the Taliban, post 911 did not present a clear and present danger to US national security, by harboring Al Qaeda, is an asinine argument and flies in the face of the facts.

The issue I have is whether invading and occupying afghanistan was the appropriate response, whether or not the Taliban were in league with al qaeda. From what I understand, the taliban never had any goals or ambition to carry out international terrorist attacks against the US or Europe. The are, and were a bunch of fanatical whackos with regional and provincial ambitions to promulgate an islamic state. There's zero evidence they knew about the 9/11 attacks, and there's zero evidence that the taliban, or any afghan citizen that I know of, ever carried out an international terrorist attack against the west.

From what I gather, the Taliban's ties to al qaeda was rooted in islamic solidarity, and bin ladin was a folk hero to them for his role in driving the soviets out of afganistan. I am not aware that the Taliban ever conspired, equipped, or helped plan any of al qaeda's international attacks.

Which is why I have to ask why it is exactly we feel compelled to wage a ten year war against a tribe of backward, theocratic fucks who's goal always has been regional and local. Plenty of nations have harbored terrorists who attacked the United States. I don't ever recall Ronald Reagan, or George HW Bush demand that we invade and occupy Libya or Iran for the deaths of hundreds of US marines and american civilians. Is invasion supposed to be the only option to deal with problems of this magnitude? No, even the dim witted Reagan knew that.

Nor is the fact that Bush fucked the US mission there up and now it's legitimacy is questionable relevant to that fact. The fact is, and you just dont' seem to be able to think this through, is that when Al Qaeda was correctly identified as the culprits for the 911 attacks and the Taliban regime harbored them and failed to comply with the US ultimatum to turn over those responsible (i.e. bin Ladin at el) then that was an ACT OF WAR against the USA and we had every right under international and domestic law to protect our national security.

To argue other wise just demonstrates both a willful and profound ignorance of both national security and foreign policy.

By the way, you also seem to fail to grasp that it's not the Taliban, per se, that's a clear and present danger to the USA but rather what it represented, a failed nation state that would allows the congregation of violent Islamic extremist groups that represents the threat.

We need to be honest with ourselves. We WANTED war after 9/11. We wanted blood pay back. I personally am past the point of believing anything the bush administration claimed. They claim the taliban would never comply or cooperate with us. I don't believe them. First, I don't believe we even tried to resolve this diplomatically, through covert ops, or through law enforcement in anything but the most trivial and inconsequential way. We wanted blood, no matter what. This is entirely consistent with how the Bush regime conducted itself. Did the Bush regime ever really want to resolve the Iraq situation, without war? Of course they didn't. They were going to have a war, and all the UN resolutions and inspections were a ruse; a fig leaf at best.

There's sufficient documented evidence that the Taliban were willing to turn over bin ladin to a neutral third country. We're they bullshitting us? Maybe. But we didn't even freaking try that route. And when it comes to preventing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and saving the US taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, I certainly am predisposed to trying everything short of bloodshed and mayhem to resolve a situation like that.

As for a failed state, that is indeed a legitimate concern. Again, is invasion and occupation the only way to mitigate the problem of a failed theocratic state? Afghanistan was a civil war. Just like Vietnam. What exactly was gained by invading and occupying? I'm not award of any examples in modern history that the problems of a failed state and a civil war was resolved adequatly with the invasion of a western army.

Again, we're kidding ourselves if we think we can impose our will through force of arms in civil war for which we have little understanding or comprehension. I really don't think it's plausible to suggest that invading is the one and only viable solution.

 

[Epicurus]

Getting Osama bin Laden was NOT the primary objective of the War on Terrorism.

Bin Laden is a symptom of a culture that we have too long allowed to fester in the Middle East. A culture that provides safe havens for terrorist training camps and gives a wink and a nod to suicide bombers.

Our goal in the War on Terror is to eliminate such places of safety for those who would strike at innocent people. If we get bin Laden along the way, more the better. But that is not and never has been our main objective. It matters little if we kill bin Laden when there are literally thousands who would joyfully replace him. What we must do, and what Bush was reasonably successful at doing, is to remove these safe havens and prevent the bin Ladens of the world from having protected places to hatch their plots.

 

[Epicurus]

ALL terrorist groups are hidden or shielded by someone. That's because NO terrorist groups are universally seen as terrorists.
The fact is that the US, UK et al are in Afghanistan under false pretences. If more people want to live in a Taliban controlled country than dont its up to them.

The problem is that while the US and the UK are democracies, Afghanistan was not. The Taliban has never been remotely interested in joining the political process peacefully. They will institute Sharia law through force. It's not simply a matter of "more people wanting to live in a Taliban controlled country than don't".

 

[Lowaicue]

The problem is that while the US and the UK are democracies, Afghanistan was not. The Taliban has never been remotely interested in joining the political process peacefully. They will institute Sharia law through force. It's not simply a matter of "more people wanting to live in a Taliban controlled country than don't".

There are many non-democratic countries in the world. Its their affair - not ours.

 

[egordon0315]

That wasn't much of a gracious acceptance of an outstretched hand, Low. Not nice!

But you do that. Don't make me call you out again. It's painful.

Cher, you have so many good points, that when you trip up like this is takes away from an otherwise credible person.

I'm just sayin' (Not sure what that means but it is all the rage here)

Had your prejudices taken more of a back seat you might have seen agreement before now.

 

[Lowaicue]

That wasn't much of a gracious acceptance of an outstretched hand, Low. Not nice!

But you do that. Don't make me call you out again. It's painful.

Cher, you have so many good points, that when you trip up like this is takes away from an otherwise credible person.

I'm just sayin' (Not sure what that means but it is all the rage here)

I assure you there was no offence meant. I guess that US register has moved further than I thought from English register. Maybe that is why Americans like to think of us as 'cold fish' and we think of Americans as warm, huggy, pains in the arse. My goodness, the reason I don't come to America is because I just know that one of you will try to hug me!!!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The problem is that while the US and the UK are democracies, Afghanistan was not. The Taliban has never been remotely interested in joining the political process peacefully. They will institute Sharia law through force. It's not simply a matter of "more people wanting to live in a Taliban controlled country than don't".

You don't need a majority of the country to institute your political will through suppression of dissent and a reasonably large base willing to resort to violence. As Mao Zedong said - give me two or three men in a village, and I'll have that village.

Polls show that the Taliban has about a 1% approval rate in Afghanistan. I don't want to leave a bunch of defenseless good people to a group of thugs.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There are many non-democratic countries in the world. Its their affair - not ours.

Who's? The peoples? Or the leaders?

In China, the non-democratic regime has a large base of support and the populace generally likes it. In Afghanistan, almost no one likes the non-democratic regime.

 

[Lowaicue]

You don't need a majority of the country to institute your political will through suppression of dissent and a reasonably large base willing to resort to violence. As Mao Zedong said - give me two or three men in a village, and I'll have that village.

Polls show that the Taliban has about a 1% approval rate in Afghanistan. I don't want to leave a bunch of defenseless good people to a group of thugs.

I totally accept the comment by Epicurus and your point. The main thrust of my argument, however, was that what happens within a sovereign state has nothing to do with us UNLESS a recognised and elected government or majority officially request our assistance.
Since Karzai is an American puppet and his legitimacy is now in question that request for assistance has not been made.
I think it might be quite likely that Pakistan might request international aid in the not too distant future. Such a request should be given the full weight of international consideration and any resultant action must be agreed by all and, of course, the UN.
Whilst on the subject of Pakistan, what happened to the millions given to Musharraf by the west?

 

[Lowaicue]

Who's? The peoples? Or the leaders?

In China, the non-democratic regime has a large base of support and the populace generally likes it. In Afghanistan, almost no one likes the non-democratic regime.

It doesn't matter. It is not our business. America is NOT the world's policeman - nor is the UK, Europe or anyone else.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It doesn't matter. It is not our business. America is NOT the world's policeman - nor is the UK, Europe or anyone else.

It's not the Taliban's business either.

So since we're both sticking our noses where it doesn't belong we might as well see who kills who.

 

[Lowaicue]

It's not the Taliban's business either.

So since we're both sticking our noses where it doesn't belong we might as well see who kills who.

The taleban are made up in the majority of Afghans and Pakistanis (originally they were mostly Pashtuns from the area straddling both countries). So it is very much their business even though they are a minority. Would it not be your business if someone were to invade and occupy the United States? - Even if the vast majority of your countrymen welcomed the invading force would you not feel an obligation to fight?
This blurring of one rather nasty lot of people into another equally nasty lot of people serves to make it easier for us to hate. Jews, gypsies and homosexuals was the Hitler cry. Taleban, Al Qaeda, Iran is yours. Lump them all together. Hate them. Every day it is the duty of every American to hate whoever your government tells you to hate. Hate-Hate-Hate-Emmanuel Goldstein! terrorist! Muslim!
Lets see who kills who and sell the victors shovels to bury the dead. Meanwhile we have much more important things to do.
Let's concentrate on living and not killing, nurturing life not ending it.

 

[christiefan915]

I assure you there was no offence meant. I guess that US register has moved further than I thought from English register. Maybe that is why Americans like to think of us as 'cold fish' and we think of Americans as warm, huggy, pains in the arse. My goodness, the reason I don't come to America is because I just know that one of you will try to hug me!!!

LOL. You'd better hope we don't come to HK, arms wide open.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The taleban are made up in the majority of Afghans and Pakistanis (originally they were mostly Pashtuns from the area straddling both countries). So it is very much their business even though they are a minority. Would it not be your business if someone were to invade and occupy the United States? - Even if the vast majority of your countrymen welcomed the invading force would you not feel an obligation to fight?
This blurring of one rather nasty lot of people into another equally nasty lot of people serves to make it easier for us to hate. Jews, gypsies and homosexuals was the Hitler cry. Taleban, Al Qaeda, Iran is yours. Lump them all together. Hate them. Every day it is the duty of every American to hate whoever your government tells you to hate. Hate-Hate-Hate-Emmanuel Goldstein! terrorist! Muslim!
Lets see who kills who and sell the victors shovels to bury the dead. Meanwhile we have much more important things to do.
Let's concentrate on living and not killing, nurturing life not ending it.

No I don't really hate the Taliban. I'd rather they lived and we come to a peaceful solution. But they have no right to force Islamic theocracy on people just because they were born there. I am a human first, a member of my nationality second.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

It doesn't matter. It is not our business. America is NOT the world's policeman - nor is the UK, Europe or anyone else.

actually, we are the world's policemen. I would assume what you mean by your argument is that america shouldn't be. I would mostly agree with you.

That said, on a global scale, might makes right, and we can do pretty much whatever we want, (See: Iraq) with the only consequence being pussy euros possibly passing a non-binding resolution saying how mean we are

 

[Lowaicue]

actually, we are the world's policemen. I would assume what you mean by your argument is that america shouldn't be. I would mostly agree with you.

That said, on a global scale, might makes right, and we can do pretty much whatever we want, (See: Iraq) with the only consequence being pussy euros possibly passing a non-binding resolution saying how mean we are

If you are the world's policemen you aren't doing a very good job.
You WERE. But, sorry to have to tell you, you no longer are. Your apparent 'might' is no longer important save with small third world nations. You are not 'policing the ME. You are not policing N Korea. You are not policing SE Asia or Europe or Russia.......
you are not even policing America!!!!!!

 

[Lowaicue]

No I don't really hate the Taliban. I'd rather they lived and we come to a peaceful solution. But they have no right to force Islamic theocracy on people just because they were born there. I am a human first, a member of my nationality second.

They have more right to try to change their own country than we have to change it for them.

 

[Minister of Truth]

This is where I draw the line. I hate empire, and do not like to see my country intervene in other country's affairs. I am perfectly okay with condemning foreigners to the tyranny of their governments, because its not America or Americans, and because said tyrants are sovereign tyrants. I do not subscribe to the braindead ideal called Wilsonianism or to the concept of global/international government.

I am perfectly okay with this, until these regimes, like the Taliban, become a threat to my national security by harboring, training, feeding, treating, equipping, and generally aiding terrorist organizations. Then I support going into a shithole like Afghanistan.

The day the Middle East ceases to be a concern to our safety and security (and I suppose this means defending oil wells, etc.), is that day I say wave the middle finger at them, and let them kill and starve each other forward into the Stone Age.