So you think we should prop it up with economic support instead? Like what Clinton is planning in Pakistan?
Or should we prop it up with tolerance?
Please, explain your plan to us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do have a plan for Afghanistan, and I have already explained it many times on this forum.
But what the hell, I try again. But first we must all understand, we can't just throw money at a problem, expect it to work, without understanding what the Afghan people need and want. Especially when Nato has a lot of past sins to atone for and has built up a legacy of mistrust. Nor can we assume we are the guys wearing the white hats and the Taliban is totally evil. Not when both the Taliban and the Nato are both going to the Afghan people and trying to convince the Afghan people that one of two radically contrasting ideas of Governance are correct and the other idea is totally wrong.
But before we can understand anything about the current Afghanistan and why the Taliban only came into existence after the Russians left, we must understand Afghan history and why the Taliban became the lesser of all other evils prior to 911. Or to put it another way, what Afghan virtues does the Taliban have to end up the winners of the Afghan civil war? And the short answer is, almost none, other than (a) the Taliban were better than the alternatives Afghanistan had. (b) and US meddling in previous Afghan affairs, its subsequent abandonment of Afghanistan after the Russian bear had its nose properly tweaked, made something like the Taliban an inevitably necessary force to bring order out of chaos.
Because people are people the world around, they want a government that works in their interests, prevents anarchy and corruption, and operates under rules they understand. the US had its chance after the Russians left and instead discarded Afghanistan like a no longer needed tool. So Afghanistan descended into anarchy, chaos, the rule of corrupt war lords and drug traffickers, each trying to secure a small piece of Turf. In such condition, the small percentage of totally most thuggish win while the other 99.5% of the populace lose everything.
As for the Taliban, which means student, it was largely started by the wealthier families of Afghans who shipped their sons off to the safety of Madrassas's in Pakistan during the Russian occupation. By Western standards, most Madrasses's were long on religion and short on science and technology. And when Afghan cleric who traveled from school to school in Pakistan was a fellow named Mullah Ohmar as a kind of inspirational speaker. As he preached of the past glories of an Afghanistan that never was that was despoiled by Western meddlers. And when these Afghan sons returned home after the Russian civil war, they certain found Mullah O was 100% correct, because Afghanistan was totally despoiled. And a small number of these students banded together and simply assassinated one thug after another, the movement grew, Mullah Ohmar became the spiritual leader, and the Taliban slowly took over.
But what is the Taliban doctrine and was it the best for Afghanistan? And simply stated, the Taliban doctrine was keeping anyone from meddling in Afghan affairs, their own brand of law and order brutally enforced, and Sharia law, discrimination against females, and an total aversion to any modern technology that would result in Afghan being mired in the 15'th century. As for the Afghan people, the Taliban was better than the previous anarchy and thugocracy even if they had little taste for primitive Sharia law and denial of modern development. But for Pakistan the Taliban was even better than sex and sliced bread, because it opened up Pakistani trade routes into the Stans to the North that would have been looted before the Taliban. Which is why Pakistan was so friendly to the Taliban and helped arm them.
So if I have not lost you yet Peshakjang, at least you might have some understanding of what the Taliban selling points had and more importantly still have to the Afghan people.
And while it may be self evident to you that Nato has the better argument selling points, what you and I think don't matter, because we are not on the jury, and its the Afghan people that are the deciders, and not us foreigners.
But the Nato selling points are democracy, modern technology, female equality, roads, schools, industrial development, and a chance for Afghanistan to join the modern world, a chance denied by the Taliban. So given the apple to apple comparison of Nato v Taliban ideas, how could Nato possibly lose? Even to this day, I firm;y believe almost all of the Afghan people would prefer that Nato and modern technology win.
Yet Nato is undeniably losing. Why? Simply answer, we forgot to deliver anything of what we promised. Too few troops to hold anything, no development dollars, then we ally and aid the old Afghan thugs so corruption and drug running is back with a vengeance, and then worse yet Nato runs from place to place which only results in perpetual violence as the Taliban comes right back after Nato goes elsewhere to stir up even more violence, endangering everyone's lives in the process.
So given that, what is the Lemon Law plan? Far more troops and with than comes the ability to hold territory and allow economic development. And as progress occurs everyone, including the Taliban could see that Nato ideas and the results are better for the Afghan people. But Noooooooooooooo, Nato is far too cheap to do that for all of Afghanistan. Because that would mean 620,000 troops, dissolving the corrupt Karzai government, spending all those development dollars we have never allocated. So we just bitch, and blame it on Pakistan and the Taliban instead.
So my alternate Lemon Law plan is that if we are too cheap to have a realistic plan to save all of Afghanistan, we have to pick a place, any smaller place in Afghanistan, and save it. Take that small area, hold it, keep the Taliban out, and then follow that up with development dollars. And once everyone can see Nato ideas are better than Taliban ideas, Nato can extend its control to larger areas of Afghanistan.
In short, its part of what got Shinseki fired by Rumsfeld, no nation can half ass a military occupation and expect to win. Go big, or stay at home, or scale down initial objectives.
We ignored the lessons every military world college in the world already learned, and now we wonder why we are losing to rascals like the Taliban. Not hard to understand when Nato makes themselves into even greater rascals than the Taliban.
Given how rotten the Taliban is, its has to be an almost mssion impossible for Nato to be somehow worse, but somehow Nato managed the feat with inspired stupidity. IMHO, McCrystal and now Petraeus are far smarter than their GWB counterparts, but its probably far too little far to late.
Facebook
Twitter