• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Japan Pledges 5 Billion for Afghanistan

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,452
4,267
136
Ahead of Obama's upcoming visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/asia/11japan.html

Japan said Tuesday that it would dramatically increase its nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan, pledging $5 billion for a range of projects that includes building schools and highways, training police officers, clearing land mines and rehabilitating former Taliban fighters.

The announcement of the new aid package, which is to be disbursed over the next five years, comes just days before the arrival of President Obama in Japan. Mr. Obama is due to arrive Friday in Tokyo, his first stop on a weeklong visit to Asia.
Whatever anyone might feel about how to proceed militarily in Afghanistan, I believe this to be very, very good news and a step in the right direction.

Hearts and minds, people, hearts and minds.
 

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,556
64
91
Indeed very good news ahead of Obama's announcement he is going to increase the troop level by almost 40000.
The necessary military resources required to protect the investments are going to be there.


It's about time the US got serious about Afghanistan.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,094
3,628
126
Ahead of Obama's upcoming visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/asia/11japan.html

Whatever anyone might feel about how to proceed militarily in Afghanistan, I believe this to be very, very good news and a step in the right direction.

Hearts and minds, people, hearts and minds.
Hearts and minds eh? I believe this greatly depends on how the money is used. I agree with the notion, but it is so infinitely easy to abuse. I just hope we're not funding the Taliban and AQ with these billions.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
This is good news.

Maybe a few hundred million will actually slip through all the corruption and truly help the Afghan people ...



:p
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,452
4,267
136
Hearts and minds eh? I believe this greatly depends on how the money is used. I agree with the notion, but it is so infinitely easy to abuse. I just hope we're not funding the Taliban and AQ with these billions.
Agreed, the devil is in the details, which is why I used that tired cliche of a phrase, btw.

However, we are definitely contributing to the Taliban and AQ with a military force first solution.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Agreed, the devil is in the details, which is why I used that tired cliche of a phrase, btw.

However, we are definitely contributing to the Taliban and AQ with a military force first solution.
Military force first? There is so much emphasis on *not* using force that we basically allow the Taliban to run free through the country unopposed in some areas. The troops are so constrained by politics now that nothing gets done, and if/when it does, it is too little too late.

Lack of leadership starts at the top.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Indeed very good news ahead of Obama's announcement he is going to increase the troop level by almost 40000.
The necessary military resources required to protect the investments are going to be there.


It's about time the US got serious about Afghanistan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth be told and going by US military doctrine, its going to take on the order of 620,000
troops to run a serious military occupation in Afghanistan.

But 40,000 troops are not worthless, but they only make our Present occupation look a hair less of a joke. Now if the rest of Nato will match the US build up in Afghanistan, we might get up to 50% of half assed.
 

grebe925

Member
Feb 22, 2008
88
0
0
Unless there is a strict watch on where the money is spent, most of it is going to end up in the pockets of corrupt governors, warlords and the government that's living on a stolen election.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
I didn't know why the Japanese were stupid enough to waste money on a lost cause like that. Why not just flush the money down the toilet? It's like sending money to Africa or the Detroit suburbs giving money to the City of Detroit.

Behind-the-scenes, perhaps there was a tremendous amount of arm-twisting from the U.S. and perhaps a few other nations.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,094
3,628
126
I didn't know the Japanese were stupid enough to waste money on a lost cause like that. Why not just flush the money down the toilet? It's like sending money to Africa or the Detroit suburbs giving money to the City of Detroit.

Behind-the-scenes, perhaps there was a tremendous amount of arm-twisting from the U.S. and perhaps a few other nations.
Arm twisting got me thinking. Does Japan receive money from the United States? Wonder if they are merely a third party to deliver our money to Afghanistan while we can save face and claim to have spent it in Japan.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
What is the $5B? Liquid? If so, who will manage it? Certainly not the corrupt Afghans or American military and their corrupt contractors. If not then will they be required to purchase Japanese equipment, decreasing its value in terms of ppp?

Also, I think this is just to throw a bone towards Obama considering the Japanese will stop helping us militarily soon.
 

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,556
64
91
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth be told and going by US military doctrine, its going to take on the order of 620,000
troops to run a serious military occupation in Afghanistan.

But 40,000 troops are not worthless, but they only make our Present occupation look a hair less of a joke. Now if the rest of Nato will match the US build up in Afghanistan, we might get up to 50% of half assed.
The thing is countries like Canada with a very small military have been taking on the Taliban for years while the US was busy beating Sadam's ass. Canadians have had enough and will pull out in 2010 and I fully agree.
Had the US kept the eyes on the ball, Afghanistan would be a done deal by now.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The thing is countries like Canada with a very small military have been taking on the Taliban for years while the US was busy beating Sadam's ass. Canadians have had enough and will pull out in 2010 and I fully agree.
Had the US kept the eyes on the ball, Afghanistan would be a done deal by now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with the general implication here, Nato as a whole ha been trying to oppose the Taliban by viewing it as a military problem, and the Canadians are no smarter or dumber than the average Nato country. The problem is, that there was no taking the eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, it was the Nato never allocated the resources to have even a tiny fraction of what it takes to win militarily. And I say Nato, because the Majority of Nato forces in Afghanistan have tended to non US troops. And as the GWB administration wound to a close, of the 72,000 Nato troops in Afghanistan, only 25,000 were US.

But the again, there may be something to be said about taking our eyes of the ball in Afghanistan, but its more than we relied on the wrong set of eyes, namely the wondrous technology of predator drones. And when Obama actually put extra combat troops on the Afghanistan, and sent them into areas we had not visited for years, we discovered the on the ground reality of Afghanistan looked vastly different than it looked from the air. And while Nato deluded itself into thinking it was making progress, the combination of corrupt Afghan officials and a Taliban alliance with the corrupt officials had already ceded control of 85% of Afghanistan to the Taliban. And that situation had existed for years.

In MHO, the Japanese approach is what is needed and its the soft underbelly of the Taliban. The Taliban are reactionary fundamentalists that oppose economic development, and economic development that is exactly what people all over the world want. And now Japan will help Nato deliver economic development to Afghanistan.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,452
4,267
136
Arm twisting got me thinking. Does Japan receive money from the United States?
Lol, think harder, NO. Not even close. In fact, Japan is one of the largest aid donors in the world by percentage of GNP, and that's not any misleading statistical anomaly as Japan's economy is also one of the world's largest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In MHO, the Japanese approach is what is needed and its the soft underbelly of the Taliban. The Taliban are reactionary fundamentalists that oppose economic development, and economic development that is exactly what people all over the world want. And now Japan will help Nato deliver economic development to Afghanistan.

THIS, THIS, THIS
THIS, THIS.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
22,448
23,836
136
The Warlords in Afghanistan would like to thank you for your donation!
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Ahead of Obama's upcoming visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/asia/11japan.html

Whatever anyone might feel about how to proceed militarily in Afghanistan, I believe this to be very, very good news and a step in the right direction.

Hearts and minds, people, hearts and minds.
I don't think this is anywhere near a good idea, you have a government so corrupted that the people that elected it might not have elected it and even if they did they have made truce with Talibans in order to protect areas and even SUPPORTED the Talibans to gain votes.

Seriously Perk, you know better than this.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
The thing is countries like Canada with a very small military have been taking on the Taliban for years while the US was busy beating Sadam's ass. Canadians have had enough and will pull out in 2010 and I fully agree.
Had the US kept the eyes on the ball, Afghanistan would be a done deal by now.
IF all the SFU's had been there and the infantry to back it up (mostly NA along with US army) along with air support then it could have been finished fairly fast.

Of course, we all know what happened, we were left stranded without air support or infantry backup in the beginning and then we were pulled out.

This was not a war the US wanted to win, i cannot find any other explanation what so ever except incompetence in both military and leadership ranks.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY