Good grief, what are we talking about, spending money in Afghanistan to win the hearts and minds of the people? That is what I mean by welfare. I am talking about how Americans feel when their kids can't afford to go to college and we're building schools in some other country. It gets a bit irritating to to have you constantly yammering about how I miss the point every time you do.
Good grief, what are we talking about, spending money in Afghanistan to win the hearts and minds of the people? That is what I mean by welfare. I am talking about how Americans feel when their kids can't afford to go to college and we're building schools in some other country. It gets a bit irritating to to have you constantly yammering about how I miss the point every time you do.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Pretty much !!
So long as a nation has only internal issues to deal with it becomes quite easy to survive into a reasonable life expectancy... just follow the rules!. I'd venture to say that not one Farmer in Iraq had a problem with Saddam. What would it matter to them who ran the country.. their reality was their farm... The will of Allah takes care of all that for them. It is when someone invades their nation that everyone's life expectancy seems to change until it all settles down and the new rules come into play...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To only say, "Good grief, what are we talking about, spending money in Afghanistan to win the hearts and minds of the people?" , it still fails many of the sniff tests.
To turn around and insist that Afghan courts work fairly costs no more or less money than looking the other way and letting drug lords and corrupt officials run them. So in that sense, the money argument is a side issue when the real issue is being stupid or smart.
And as soon as one admits an Afghan occupation was made necessary by 911, we already have a bundle of money invested in going half way around the world. And if we fail to offer the Afghan people descent government, we might as well have not come in the first place. So if we fail to offer that good governance that will win hearts and minds, the people we hurt becomes us because we have doomed our own occupation.
Of course, some could say we should not have invaded Afghanistan after 911, but rightly or wrongly, there are no escaping the fact that the different decision was made.
To turn around and insist that Afghan courts work fairly costs no more or less money than looking the other way and letting drug lords and corrupt officials run them. So in that sense, the money argument is a side issue when the real issue is being stupid or smart.
And as soon as one admits an Afghan occupation was made necessary by 911, we already have a bundle of money invested in going half way around the world. And if we fail to offer the Afghan people descent government, we might as well have not come in the first place. So if we fail to offer that good governance that will win hearts and minds, the people we hurt becomes us because we have doomed our own occupation.
Of course, some could say we should not have invaded Afghanistan after 911, but rightly or wrongly, there are no escaping the fact that the different decision was made.
Yes, but this thread is not about what happened, but what should have happened, as well as what the consequences might have been, and not having invaded would be somewhere at the top of my list. We had for years and years dealt with terrorists with the rule of law and would have none of the mess we have now had we continued to do so and we would have preserved the good will of the world that 9/11 generated. There are earlier places to go for stupid and smart, places that would have augmented our standing in the world and strengthened international law.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I can finally almost totally agree with Moonbeam when he says, " Yes, but this thread is not about what happened, but what should have happened, as well as what the consequences might have been, and not having invaded would be somewhere at the top of my list. We had for years and years dealt with terrorists with the rule of law and would have none of the mess we have now had we continued to do so and we would have preserved the good will of the world that 9/11 generated. There are earlier places to go for stupid and smart, places that would have augmented our standing in the world and strengthened international law."
The only slight quibble I have is that even after seven plus years of an occupation that got off on the wrong foot and stayed on the wrong foot in Afghanistan, even at this late date, its still possible to start doing things right. The basic formula for success is still the same, we have simply wasted seven years not applying that formula.
As it is, once the USA decided to invade and occupy, a possible mistake that can't be reversed, its basically a succeed or bust proposition. And our other damn problem is that Nato can't easily withdraw. Or Afghanistan will become a terrorist playground. But the same basic things were said of Vietnam also, we did get out, and total disaster did not strike.
The only slight quibble I have is that even after seven plus years of an occupation that got off on the wrong foot and stayed on the wrong foot in Afghanistan, even at this late date, its still possible to start doing things right. The basic formula for success is still the same, we have simply wasted seven years not applying that formula.
As it is, once the USA decided to invade and occupy, a possible mistake that can't be reversed, its basically a succeed or bust proposition. And our other damn problem is that Nato can't easily withdraw. Or Afghanistan will become a terrorist playground. But the same basic things were said of Vietnam also, we did get out, and total disaster did not strike.
Ll: The only slight quibble I have is that even after seven plus years of an occupation that got off on the wrong foot and stayed on the wrong foot in Afghanistan, even at this late date, its still possible to start doing things right. The basic formula for success is still the same, we have simply wasted seven years not applying that formula.
As it is, once the USA decided to invade and occupy, a possible mistake that can't be reversed, its basically a succeed or bust proposition. And our other damn problem is that Nato can't easily withdraw. Or Afghanistan will become a terrorist playground. But the same basic things were said of Vietnam also, we did get out, and total disaster did not strike.
M: Which brings me full circle back to where cwj began in his OP:
"Swept up by anger I believed we overreached in Afghanistan by looking to occupy and rebuild the 2nd poorest country in the world in an effort to change the face of the Middle East area."
He suggests that we need more pragmatic vision and less idealism and I do not disagree. What I disagree with is that we learn from history, that we are able to set aside our emotional reactions by the use of better common sense and I disagree for a number of reasons.
First of all, our leaders play on those very emotions of fear and reactivity to further their own political careers. They actively turn us into paranoid delusionals in the hope they can capture our vote. Politics is a race to the bottom, a race for the least common denominator to squeeze out a few percentage of the vote enough to win an election. Politicians are traitors because they create fear, the kind of fear that now is bankrupting the nation in the Middle East. Be afraid, vote for me, and I will protect you. Cheney is doing it today. We need to torture to keep you safe and it's OK because we are going to torture monsters.
Fear is anger and war is mass psychosis. So callous political ambition and the democratic process create a synergy that produced fear and another face of fear is rage, an excess of anger that leads to poor judgment.
So our system can conspired to make us more angry than we should be. We could change our system. Good luck. We could ask politicians not to use fear because it can destroy us. " Please dear politicians, don't put your political ambition above the good of the people." Good luck.
Secondly, the only anger we can do anything about is our own. Anger is a defense mechanism that keeps us from feeling pain, but pain that we unconsciously experience anyway. Anger is our own rage against ourselves, our own hate for ourselves, trying to avoid feeling guilty of something we were made to feel guilty of even though we were never really guilty. How are you going to help people grow emotionally. Good luck.
So there are a million things we should do or could do, a million prescriptions by which we could improve. I have tried to go to the deepest source of our trouble, to the core issue that is our problem, to cast light on the fact that we are our own worst enemy and because we have been taught to hate ourselves. That is the heart of the problem and if truth and light can make any difference, if the soul can awaken, if man can evolve, he will evolve best if he can start to increase the numbers of people who recognize that the thing that is killing us is the feelings we all have that we are worthless, ridiculous lies we were inculcated with as children. Good luck.
As it is, once the USA decided to invade and occupy, a possible mistake that can't be reversed, its basically a succeed or bust proposition. And our other damn problem is that Nato can't easily withdraw. Or Afghanistan will become a terrorist playground. But the same basic things were said of Vietnam also, we did get out, and total disaster did not strike.
M: Which brings me full circle back to where cwj began in his OP:
"Swept up by anger I believed we overreached in Afghanistan by looking to occupy and rebuild the 2nd poorest country in the world in an effort to change the face of the Middle East area."
He suggests that we need more pragmatic vision and less idealism and I do not disagree. What I disagree with is that we learn from history, that we are able to set aside our emotional reactions by the use of better common sense and I disagree for a number of reasons.
First of all, our leaders play on those very emotions of fear and reactivity to further their own political careers. They actively turn us into paranoid delusionals in the hope they can capture our vote. Politics is a race to the bottom, a race for the least common denominator to squeeze out a few percentage of the vote enough to win an election. Politicians are traitors because they create fear, the kind of fear that now is bankrupting the nation in the Middle East. Be afraid, vote for me, and I will protect you. Cheney is doing it today. We need to torture to keep you safe and it's OK because we are going to torture monsters.
Fear is anger and war is mass psychosis. So callous political ambition and the democratic process create a synergy that produced fear and another face of fear is rage, an excess of anger that leads to poor judgment.
So our system can conspired to make us more angry than we should be. We could change our system. Good luck. We could ask politicians not to use fear because it can destroy us. " Please dear politicians, don't put your political ambition above the good of the people." Good luck.
Secondly, the only anger we can do anything about is our own. Anger is a defense mechanism that keeps us from feeling pain, but pain that we unconsciously experience anyway. Anger is our own rage against ourselves, our own hate for ourselves, trying to avoid feeling guilty of something we were made to feel guilty of even though we were never really guilty. How are you going to help people grow emotionally. Good luck.
So there are a million things we should do or could do, a million prescriptions by which we could improve. I have tried to go to the deepest source of our trouble, to the core issue that is our problem, to cast light on the fact that we are our own worst enemy and because we have been taught to hate ourselves. That is the heart of the problem and if truth and light can make any difference, if the soul can awaken, if man can evolve, he will evolve best if he can start to increase the numbers of people who recognize that the thing that is killing us is the feelings we all have that we are worthless, ridiculous lies we were inculcated with as children. Good luck.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times do I have to say it cwj, before it penetrates your brain, we have to give the Afghan people a government that WORKS.
That means making the courts work fairly, eliminating police, army, and drug money corruption, and its a job Nato has yet to start.
And because Nato does not have a real mission, the military simply reverts to doing what it knows best how to do, namely killing people and breaking things. Which does nothing towards giving the Afghan people a government that WORKS.
Of course that other thing that Nato excels at is at is making excuses for it failures. And because the Krazai government does nothing either, it just feathers the Nato nest while it does nothing to address the real problems.
Bottom line, the GWB assumption that Afghan democracy would be the magic panacea has not panned out, trusting Karzai to fix anything is a guarantee of perpetual failure. And until Nato drives the corrupt out of governance, Afghanistan will be a perpetual hellhole in which all kinds of insurgencies will thrive.
If we examine Taliban tactics, when they get control in a given area, that is the first thing they do, they make sure their brand of brutal justice is swift and sure. Thieves and the corrupt get swiftly punished, and sad to say, it still beats the hell out of what Nato is more than willing to tolerate, as they simply look the other way at a court system that only functions by bribes and power.
Bottom lime, cwj, you would not tolerate it if it happened where you live, but you have zero empathy with the Afghan people who have to live that as a daily reality. And when the Afghan people say, in large numbers, that life under Taliban rule pre-911, was much better than it is now, that says much about how inept the Nato occupation is.
The other remaining thing to say, is that your bomb the hell out of the Afghan people in an orgy of collective punishment post 911 would have done nothing other than avoiding Nato putting boots on the ground. And it would have simply have alienated the world against the USA while justifying the real enemy, namely Al-Quida.
Everyone knows this, and yes, it is the goal of the ISAF. I thought you had something more profound than the obvious.
Slow down there chief, you realize they are trying to instill capitalistic ideals, rule of law, western management philosophy, and democracy in a place where those principles and foreign and have no tradition. We have trouble enough managing our own 3.6 million square mile patch of geography and practicing "Western Values" ourselves, despite the best efforts of 800,000 or so sworn law officers and a lot of other resources. Outside our country, we can influence, coach, and encourage, but not manage.
That is, unless you become dictitorial in your methods and it backfires for that reason as well. There are many trained experts from around the world with a lot of knowledge and experience working in these type of situations and they are much smarter than you on this subject. Trust me.
NATO does not have a real mission? The mission is quite clear, however imperfectly executed. I suggest you learn more, because as a self admitted partisan, you seem to only be looking at things from a very narrow scope. I believe NATO deserves criticism with some things, but your Monday morning quarterbacking on a weekly basis is borderline compulsive and completely unrealistic and unfair.
Interesting that your constant attacks were directed at the USA until Obama was elected and then your snarling was re-directed at NATO. And based on the 1369 posts you've written (which all say the exact same thing) and the manner in which you post them (insulting, hyperbole, and one-sided) I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are not the best person to be saying much of anything regarding such a complex issue.
By the way, far from being trigger happy morons trying to kill people and break things, the knock on NATO has been the opposite... an unwillingness to engage at times and an overall lack of force size to hold the terrain.
I've never seen someone demand so much perfection in a completely imperfect situation. Talk about blowing mistakes and problems up and trashing everyone as a whole...
Are you kidding me? The world had no love for the Taliban or Al Qaeda and we had their backing in using military force. If you believe that the world would have turned against us if we hadn't had a full occupation is silly... it's obvious that there is no right solution for you other than unrealistic generalities and slogans. You're job is to complain, criticize and bitch no matter what because that's all a fraud can do...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Sadly, cwjerome, you embody all that is wrong with our occupation in Afghanistan as you moan and groan that the Afghan people are so primitive, its hopeless.
Then to reinforce that, cwj says, "Slow down there chief, you realize they are trying to instill capitalistic ideals, rule of law, western management philosophy, and democracy in a place where those principles and foreign and have no tradition."
And if cwj, is smart enough to realize that there is a vast experience gulf between a nation like the USA and Afghanistan, cwj should also be smart enough to also realize that people are still people the world over, and any set of people are smart enough to not fail to notice when their courts don't work, their government does not work, and to add injury to insult, everything is riddled with corruption.
So I am beginning to wonder, exactly what ole cwj advocates? Is his only mission from God to bash me, does he really seriously think the same ole tactics will succeed after seven years of failure, or what?
Like it or not cwj, neither you or I made the decision to try to occupy Afghanistan, but now that we are there, as an American, I want Nato and America to win. And if I can see and point out the things that need to change to reverse our losing ground, its my patriotic duty to speak out.
As for the other cwj cop out, in saying, " Interesting that your constant attacks were directed at the USA until Obama was elected and then your snarling was re-directed at NATO.", cwj simply has not been reading my posts, because I have lost count of the number of times I have said that if Obama tries GWB tactics, he will get the same GWB results.
And I certainly hope that this post will put the shoe on the other foot, I have done put my position on the table, now its well past time for you, cwj, to state what you advocate to make this Afghan occupation a success.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then to reinforce that, cwj says, "Slow down there chief, you realize they are trying to instill capitalistic ideals, rule of law, western management philosophy, and democracy in a place where those principles and foreign and have no tradition."
And if cwj, is smart enough to realize that there is a vast experience gulf between a nation like the USA and Afghanistan, cwj should also be smart enough to also realize that people are still people the world over, and any set of people are smart enough to not fail to notice when their courts don't work, their government does not work, and to add injury to insult, everything is riddled with corruption.
So I am beginning to wonder, exactly what ole cwj advocates? Is his only mission from God to bash me, does he really seriously think the same ole tactics will succeed after seven years of failure, or what?
Like it or not cwj, neither you or I made the decision to try to occupy Afghanistan, but now that we are there, as an American, I want Nato and America to win. And if I can see and point out the things that need to change to reverse our losing ground, its my patriotic duty to speak out.
As for the other cwj cop out, in saying, " Interesting that your constant attacks were directed at the USA until Obama was elected and then your snarling was re-directed at NATO.", cwj simply has not been reading my posts, because I have lost count of the number of times I have said that if Obama tries GWB tactics, he will get the same GWB results.
And I certainly hope that this post will put the shoe on the other foot, I have done put my position on the table, now its well past time for you, cwj, to state what you advocate to make this Afghan occupation a success.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CEO Bob (aka CWJ): "Thanks for coming in today. All of us here are looking forward to hearing your ideas."
Consultant Lemon Law: "Well Bob, it's really quite simple. I want you to succeed. So, in order to do, I'm telling you here and now, for the thousandth time, that you need to do things betterer."
CEO Bob: "Hmmm, OK. That sounds nice. What exact things can I do betterer?"
Consultant Lemon Law: "Bob, isn't it obvious?! You must do things fasterer."
CEO Bob: "Ummm, OK. That sounds nice. What exactly should I do fasterer?"
Consultant Lemon Law: "Jesus Bob, it's like you're not listening to me. First, you need to start listening to me. You need to start doing things betterer and fasterer."
CEO Bob: "Ummm, OK............ ummmm....... what things?"
Consultant Lemon Law: "Damnit Bob, I'm beginning to think that you are the problem here when you ask "what things." You've been CEO around here for over seven years, and you still haven't figured out how to do these things betterer and fasterer. I've been coming in here and spending countless hours telling you do things fasterer and betterer. You're simply too daft to listen. You're a failure Bob. Stop being a failure Bob. Do as I've said to make things fasterer and betterer Bob."
CEO Bob: "Umm... OK then.............huh...... ummmm ........... wait, how much are we paying you again?!?!"
Consultant Lemon Law: "Well Bob, it's really quite simple. I want you to succeed. So, in order to do, I'm telling you here and now, for the thousandth time, that you need to do things betterer."
CEO Bob: "Hmmm, OK. That sounds nice. What exact things can I do betterer?"
Consultant Lemon Law: "Bob, isn't it obvious?! You must do things fasterer."
CEO Bob: "Ummm, OK. That sounds nice. What exactly should I do fasterer?"
Consultant Lemon Law: "Jesus Bob, it's like you're not listening to me. First, you need to start listening to me. You need to start doing things betterer and fasterer."
CEO Bob: "Ummm, OK............ ummmm....... what things?"
Consultant Lemon Law: "Damnit Bob, I'm beginning to think that you are the problem here when you ask "what things." You've been CEO around here for over seven years, and you still haven't figured out how to do these things betterer and fasterer. I've been coming in here and spending countless hours telling you do things fasterer and betterer. You're simply too daft to listen. You're a failure Bob. Stop being a failure Bob. Do as I've said to make things fasterer and betterer Bob."
CEO Bob: "Umm... OK then.............huh...... ummmm ........... wait, how much are we paying you again?!?!"
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To CEO Bob or is it TheSkinsFans, if you choose to play dumb and not read what I wrote, I will give it to you one more time. We need to get the Afghan people a government that works, and after seven years, " betterer and fasterer " can't be the issue because the issue is non speed and a commitment to not even starting.
It really does not take much money, but we need to get the war lords and the drug dealers out of Afghan government and do the same with the court system. Instead Nato is in bed with those very corrupt people because they are willing to coexist with the Nato occupation and can enrich themselves in the process. And because of the few in power, we lose all the rest of the 31 million Afghan people and any prospect of prevailing in the occupation.
And one more thing to ponder, if we in Nato do not do provide a government that works, the Taliban will. Its why they rose to power in the first place, because as bad as they are, they were better than the anarchy and corruption after the Afghan civil war and are better than the corrupt government we are trying to foist off on the Afghan people.
And in terms of the last immature dig of "CEO Bob: "Umm... OK then.............huh...... ummmm ........... wait, how much are we paying you again?!?!" , the answer is nothing.
I happen to think Nato can and should win in Afghanistan, and after seven years of negative progress, its well past time to fire CeoBob's ass if he can't listen and deliver some positive progress for once in his life. I have told you why we are failing, now like cwjerome, its time for you to tell us your version of how we can succeed.
It really does not take much money, but we need to get the war lords and the drug dealers out of Afghan government and do the same with the court system. Instead Nato is in bed with those very corrupt people because they are willing to coexist with the Nato occupation and can enrich themselves in the process. And because of the few in power, we lose all the rest of the 31 million Afghan people and any prospect of prevailing in the occupation.
And one more thing to ponder, if we in Nato do not do provide a government that works, the Taliban will. Its why they rose to power in the first place, because as bad as they are, they were better than the anarchy and corruption after the Afghan civil war and are better than the corrupt government we are trying to foist off on the Afghan people.
And in terms of the last immature dig of "CEO Bob: "Umm... OK then.............huh...... ummmm ........... wait, how much are we paying you again?!?!" , the answer is nothing.
I happen to think Nato can and should win in Afghanistan, and after seven years of negative progress, its well past time to fire CeoBob's ass if he can't listen and deliver some positive progress for once in his life. I have told you why we are failing, now like cwjerome, its time for you to tell us your version of how we can succeed.
You have finally come up with some general answers. However, the answers are easy. Yes we know we need good governance from a fair Afghani government. Yes, to do this we need to stamp out corruption and and fix the courts. But now you need to show your work... how do we get those answers?
I have laid out what I think we should have done... which is the actual topic. I will go ahead and answer your question as to how I think we can make this occupation a success. Unfortunately, I think "success" will be a long hard road because of the overall crappy situation (which I laid out earlier) and missteps in the first 7 years of the occupation.
My plan would be twofold: Protect the population and expand the capability of the government.
Protecting the population must involve an allied surge along with increasing the presence of allied troops throughout the region and keeping them in place with the population longer. A big part of population protection should include focused efforts to avoid civilian casualties. The last part of this would be to improve control of the borders.
Expanding the capability of the government means expanding the size and capability of the Afghan security forces (and legal system). The forces must contribute to promoting the rule of law and the legitimacy of the central government while being professional. This process cannot be rushed. Command and control across economic, political, and military functions are often disjointed and disconnected, and must be improved. Lastly, the central government must have a strong connection to provincial and local governments.
In other words, keep doing what we're doing, just do it better. This will probably require an additional 35,000-40,000 troops upfront, another 8-10 years, and many 10s of billions of dollars in economic assistance.
If we can't (or won't) do that then we should leave immediately. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is the tiniest shadow of what it once was and the Taliban have been "punished." Let the cards fall where they may.
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The keys to the cwjerome plan seem to be contained here, "Expanding the capability of the government means expanding the size and capability of the Afghan security forces (and legal system). The forces must contribute to promoting the rule of law and the legitimacy of the central government while being professional. This process cannot be rushed. Command and control across economic, political, and military functions are often disjointed and disconnected, and must be improved. Lastly, the central government must have a strong connection to provincial and local governments.
In other words, "keep doing what we're doing, just do it better. This will probably require an additional 35,000-40,000 troops upfront, another 8-10 years, and many 10s of billions of dollars in economic assistance."
If we can't (or won't) do that then we should leave immediately. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is the tiniest shadow of what it once was and the Taliban have been "punished." Let the cards fall where they may."
The first flaw in the cwjerome plan seems to be in, " In other words, keep doing what we're doing, just do it better" Which is delusional, because what we are doing now is a total failure. The second flaw is in assuming that "This will probably require an additional 35,000-40,000 troops upfront, another 8-10 years, and many 10s of billions of dollars in economic assistance." And while I somewhat agree that that the economic assistance will be needed, if the US and Nato simply assume 35,000 to 40,000 additional troops will fix anything, then we need a reality check. As it is, additional troops are part of the new Obama plan being implemented already, but to run a "classic military occupation" in a nation of 31 million people, Nato must talk 620,000 reliable troops, which leaves the post surge troop numbers some 500,000 short. And if cwjerome thinks the USA will stay for another 8-10 years without any progress, a psychiatric examination is advised.
The facts are and remain, the only effective solution is to concentrate on a corruption free Afghan government, meanwhile we have done nothing in that area after seven plus years, and the cwjerome strategy is way too little way too late.
But the facts are, we have engaged in mission creep, instead of going after Al-Quida, the perps in 911, we somehow think that we can instead militarily defeat the Taliban, who also, as a home grown movement, have their own vision of what a corruption free Afghan government is. And if Nato can't deliver that corruption free government, we only empower the Taliban. And sad to say, after seven years of Nato looking the other way without addressing the corruption issue, Nato only proves the Taliban is right.
In other words, "keep doing what we're doing, just do it better. This will probably require an additional 35,000-40,000 troops upfront, another 8-10 years, and many 10s of billions of dollars in economic assistance."
If we can't (or won't) do that then we should leave immediately. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is the tiniest shadow of what it once was and the Taliban have been "punished." Let the cards fall where they may."
The first flaw in the cwjerome plan seems to be in, " In other words, keep doing what we're doing, just do it better" Which is delusional, because what we are doing now is a total failure. The second flaw is in assuming that "This will probably require an additional 35,000-40,000 troops upfront, another 8-10 years, and many 10s of billions of dollars in economic assistance." And while I somewhat agree that that the economic assistance will be needed, if the US and Nato simply assume 35,000 to 40,000 additional troops will fix anything, then we need a reality check. As it is, additional troops are part of the new Obama plan being implemented already, but to run a "classic military occupation" in a nation of 31 million people, Nato must talk 620,000 reliable troops, which leaves the post surge troop numbers some 500,000 short. And if cwjerome thinks the USA will stay for another 8-10 years without any progress, a psychiatric examination is advised.
The facts are and remain, the only effective solution is to concentrate on a corruption free Afghan government, meanwhile we have done nothing in that area after seven plus years, and the cwjerome strategy is way too little way too late.
But the facts are, we have engaged in mission creep, instead of going after Al-Quida, the perps in 911, we somehow think that we can instead militarily defeat the Taliban, who also, as a home grown movement, have their own vision of what a corruption free Afghan government is. And if Nato can't deliver that corruption free government, we only empower the Taliban. And sad to say, after seven years of Nato looking the other way without addressing the corruption issue, Nato only proves the Taliban is right.
No LL... what you seem to believe is that we can snap our fingers and corruption will suddenly disappear, and once that corruption is gone, Afghanistan will be a paradise.
You somehow believe that this is total failure, 100% complete failure, yet just a simple little fix will bring miraculous results. What you need to understand is it's not complete failure, there are no simple fixes, and there will be no miraculous results. It's like talking to a child... black and white, love and hate, total failure and total success.
Why don't you define failure, right here and right now, because there are plenty of minor successes and good trends happening. Will you ignore any positives to declare failure? I want to hear it because you seem to think it's oh so easy and unless it's a fucking utopia within 7 years then it's a total failure. We couldn't handle the insurgency in Vietnam, counterinsurgencies are nearly impossible to "win" in a foreign land, Afghanistan was as screwed up as any country gets, but there's LL declaring to everyone that it's a piece of cake and everyone should have been dancing in the streets years ago with vague references about fixing corruption. You are beyond delusional.
If you think an additional 40,000 Soldiers won't help you are wrong, if you think anyone will send 500,000 then you're stupid. The biggest security problem in Afghanistan is holding the terrain and preventing insurgents from returning to villages that have been cleared. There just hasn't been enough troops to do the job... that's what the surge is for. Morale for the allies dwindles when we pull out of a place and the Taliban move in again. Then the cycle repeats itself over again... breaking the cycle is the first step.
The U.S. surge in Iraq was complemented by an even larger increase in the number of Iraqi soldiers and police officers. Similar efforts regarding the Afghan Army and police are under way, but this is a process that will require years. Yes, I said years. Nation building a shithole requires years. What you call corruption is standard SOP in a culture marked by power, bribery, violence, and tribalism. For some reason you believe we can brainwash these people into our culture and build an efficient, professional government overnight. Must you be reminded that this is a country whose "government" controlled less than half the land and only through horrific violence?
You are a classic example of a shmuck who has read a couple books and keeps up with the news and thinks himself some expert. There are a great many REAL experts on the subject, in the field, working with the realities that you have no clue about. Your constant bitching about NATO and how the Taliban was better is intellectually vacant and morally disgusting. Please stop.
You somehow believe that this is total failure, 100% complete failure, yet just a simple little fix will bring miraculous results. What you need to understand is it's not complete failure, there are no simple fixes, and there will be no miraculous results. It's like talking to a child... black and white, love and hate, total failure and total success.
Why don't you define failure, right here and right now, because there are plenty of minor successes and good trends happening. Will you ignore any positives to declare failure? I want to hear it because you seem to think it's oh so easy and unless it's a fucking utopia within 7 years then it's a total failure. We couldn't handle the insurgency in Vietnam, counterinsurgencies are nearly impossible to "win" in a foreign land, Afghanistan was as screwed up as any country gets, but there's LL declaring to everyone that it's a piece of cake and everyone should have been dancing in the streets years ago with vague references about fixing corruption. You are beyond delusional.
If you think an additional 40,000 Soldiers won't help you are wrong, if you think anyone will send 500,000 then you're stupid. The biggest security problem in Afghanistan is holding the terrain and preventing insurgents from returning to villages that have been cleared. There just hasn't been enough troops to do the job... that's what the surge is for. Morale for the allies dwindles when we pull out of a place and the Taliban move in again. Then the cycle repeats itself over again... breaking the cycle is the first step.
The U.S. surge in Iraq was complemented by an even larger increase in the number of Iraqi soldiers and police officers. Similar efforts regarding the Afghan Army and police are under way, but this is a process that will require years. Yes, I said years. Nation building a shithole requires years. What you call corruption is standard SOP in a culture marked by power, bribery, violence, and tribalism. For some reason you believe we can brainwash these people into our culture and build an efficient, professional government overnight. Must you be reminded that this is a country whose "government" controlled less than half the land and only through horrific violence?
You are a classic example of a shmuck who has read a couple books and keeps up with the news and thinks himself some expert. There are a great many REAL experts on the subject, in the field, working with the realities that you have no clue about. Your constant bitching about NATO and how the Taliban was better is intellectually vacant and morally disgusting. Please stop.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
No cwjerome, what I advocate is more than a childish delusion, its the central reason why Nato makes no progress in Afghanistan.
As for the surge in Iraq, the original plan outlined by GWB was a totally busted play, because those Iraqi police were simply part of the death squads and part of the problem.
While the slightly augmented troops numbers helped in Iraq, the real success in the surge was due to prior efforts to drive a wedge between Al-Quida and the Sunni insurgencies that hosted Al-Quida. Which resulted in a reduction of Iraqi on Iraqi violence and the illusion that real progress was being made. As it is, all the various Iraqi insurgencies are better armed than ever, and at no time has Al-Quida been more than 15% of the total Iraqi insurgencies.
Without the Iraqi political progress between the Sunnis, Kurds, and majority Shia that has yet to happen, optimism or permission hangs in the balance.
The problem in Afghanistan is the Nato failure to drive that equivalent wedge between Al-Quida and the Taliban. And worse yet, the Taliban is allying with various non Taliban
CIA trained ex Mujaheddin types, who are likewise enraged at government corruption and Nato tactics.
But nothing would be more effective at undercutting the Taliban than a Nato commitment to drive corruption out of Afghan government. And instead Nato encourages the corruption.
As for the surge in Iraq, the original plan outlined by GWB was a totally busted play, because those Iraqi police were simply part of the death squads and part of the problem.
While the slightly augmented troops numbers helped in Iraq, the real success in the surge was due to prior efforts to drive a wedge between Al-Quida and the Sunni insurgencies that hosted Al-Quida. Which resulted in a reduction of Iraqi on Iraqi violence and the illusion that real progress was being made. As it is, all the various Iraqi insurgencies are better armed than ever, and at no time has Al-Quida been more than 15% of the total Iraqi insurgencies.
Without the Iraqi political progress between the Sunnis, Kurds, and majority Shia that has yet to happen, optimism or permission hangs in the balance.
The problem in Afghanistan is the Nato failure to drive that equivalent wedge between Al-Quida and the Taliban. And worse yet, the Taliban is allying with various non Taliban
CIA trained ex Mujaheddin types, who are likewise enraged at government corruption and Nato tactics.
But nothing would be more effective at undercutting the Taliban than a Nato commitment to drive corruption out of Afghan government. And instead Nato encourages the corruption.
LL,
1) how would you suggest we completely "eliminate corruption" within the Afghan government, at all levels, and in all agencies?
2) What practical and explicit steps should NATO take to do so?
3) Where will we find the new "clean" candidates for each position?
4) How will we effectively vet those candidates?
5) Should we completely derail their current semi-democratic processes and begin forcefully appointing those thousands of officials ourselves?
6) etc etc.
Real strategists don't speak in generic abstracts -- aka bullshit -- instead, they must wrestle with the very real questions, and, most importantly, very real details. Otherwise, they're simply repeating the words "fasterer" or "betterer" over and over again to no effect.
Monday morning quarterbacks are notorious for saying things like "They should have run left" or "They should have thrown it deep." Fuck that useless uneducated noise. Since you claim to be so clued in, I want to see you call the actual play itself. Tell us exactly what plays NATO should be running -- IOW, give us the who, what, when, where, why, and how for each and every aspect of your supposedly enlightened solution.
This is where you need to step up or shut up. Good luck.
1) how would you suggest we completely "eliminate corruption" within the Afghan government, at all levels, and in all agencies?
2) What practical and explicit steps should NATO take to do so?
3) Where will we find the new "clean" candidates for each position?
4) How will we effectively vet those candidates?
5) Should we completely derail their current semi-democratic processes and begin forcefully appointing those thousands of officials ourselves?
6) etc etc.
Real strategists don't speak in generic abstracts -- aka bullshit -- instead, they must wrestle with the very real questions, and, most importantly, very real details. Otherwise, they're simply repeating the words "fasterer" or "betterer" over and over again to no effect.
Monday morning quarterbacks are notorious for saying things like "They should have run left" or "They should have thrown it deep." Fuck that useless uneducated noise. Since you claim to be so clued in, I want to see you call the actual play itself. Tell us exactly what plays NATO should be running -- IOW, give us the who, what, when, where, why, and how for each and every aspect of your supposedly enlightened solution.
This is where you need to step up or shut up. Good luck.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
At least TheSkinsFan asks the right question, and I have a plan for that. Maybe rather draconian, because we would have to basically dissolve the Karzai government or really read the riot act to them. And then have US military and Nato military assistance to supervise the various governmental positions, especially provincial governors, put the war lords and drug lords out of business, and do the same with the courts.
Ironically, its exactly what the Taliban did when they took over circa 1995, and it only took the Taliban a few years to complete the job. There is an overwhelming amount of Afghan support for exactly that kind of choice, the problem is currently, that even if these various corrupt officials are openly violating Afghan law, they are never charged with a crime, and would just bribe their way out of it if they were. And until we in Nato change that calculus and these corrupt officials find themselves in jail and off the streets, its would be enough to motivate the rest to straighten up their act.
Until we get to addressing the functional government problem, all else is wasted time and moving backward. Top down strategies never work if it does not flow down far enough to get to man on the street popular support. And besides, Its the only way to overcome the handicap of Nato lack of troops.
And TheSkinsFan is basically wrong in saying, "Real strategists don't speak in generic abstracts -- aka bullshit -- instead, they must wrestle with the very real questions, and, most importantly, very real details."
While the latter point is somewhat correct that the details have to be wrestle with to get things right, but first the real strategist has to have that overall generic abstract plan to guide them from the word go, and then they follow that to get the details in place. And its what we lack, any commitment to make the Afghan government working, and without that, we fail, and fail badly because we have committed to the wrong generic abstract plan of a military defeat of the Taliban. After seven years, it not only has not happened, the Taliban gets stronger every year. Granted Rumsfeld and our military would have been better off addressing the Government working problem in 2002, they did not, but that still does not mean we can't start doing it now. And if we do not do it now or ever, its just a matter of time before Nato will leave mission not accomplished.
Ironically, its exactly what the Taliban did when they took over circa 1995, and it only took the Taliban a few years to complete the job. There is an overwhelming amount of Afghan support for exactly that kind of choice, the problem is currently, that even if these various corrupt officials are openly violating Afghan law, they are never charged with a crime, and would just bribe their way out of it if they were. And until we in Nato change that calculus and these corrupt officials find themselves in jail and off the streets, its would be enough to motivate the rest to straighten up their act.
Until we get to addressing the functional government problem, all else is wasted time and moving backward. Top down strategies never work if it does not flow down far enough to get to man on the street popular support. And besides, Its the only way to overcome the handicap of Nato lack of troops.
And TheSkinsFan is basically wrong in saying, "Real strategists don't speak in generic abstracts -- aka bullshit -- instead, they must wrestle with the very real questions, and, most importantly, very real details."
While the latter point is somewhat correct that the details have to be wrestle with to get things right, but first the real strategist has to have that overall generic abstract plan to guide them from the word go, and then they follow that to get the details in place. And its what we lack, any commitment to make the Afghan government working, and without that, we fail, and fail badly because we have committed to the wrong generic abstract plan of a military defeat of the Taliban. After seven years, it not only has not happened, the Taliban gets stronger every year. Granted Rumsfeld and our military would have been better off addressing the Government working problem in 2002, they did not, but that still does not mean we can't start doing it now. And if we do not do it now or ever, its just a matter of time before Nato will leave mission not accomplished.
I think we have the issue of Iran that is going to be a similar situation. Ar we going to try to overthrow that government too and bring them democracy? One would think we wouldn't be that stupid, but you never know.
I never said I had one.
You, on the other hand, avoided every single one of the questions posted above. It's quite obvious that you're nothing more than a blowhard -- "a stand-up philosopher," if you will. You have no clue how to implement any of your own bullshit, and the ground-truth seems to be your biggest enemy.
After looking back through your post history on this subject, I see that you've never provided a single detail for any of the nonsense you've shomitted onto these pages. Shocker.
"fasterer" and "betterer" indeed.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
If you look back TheSkinsFan, you are the one who introduced "CEO Bob: "Hmmm, OK. That sounds nice. What exact things can I do betterer?"
Consultant Lemon Law: "Bob, isn't it obvious?! You must do things fasterer."
CEO Bob: "Ummm, OK. That sounds nice. What exactly should I do fasterer?"
And then with a memory that does not last more than a day, TheSkinsFan says, " "fasterer" and "betterer" indeed."
But when it comes to a plan, TheSkinsFan, admits he does does have one and seemingly does not have a clue about Nato's plan that still makes negative progress after seven years.
Consultant Lemon Law: "Bob, isn't it obvious?! You must do things fasterer."
CEO Bob: "Ummm, OK. That sounds nice. What exactly should I do fasterer?"
And then with a memory that does not last more than a day, TheSkinsFan says, " "fasterer" and "betterer" indeed."
But when it comes to a plan, TheSkinsFan, admits he does does have one and seemingly does not have a clue about Nato's plan that still makes negative progress after seven years.
And it's hilarious, watching, day after day, as you go on about things that you quite obviously haven't a clue about.
It's sad that I have to spell this out for you, but you should know that I've been using those two words to mock the total lack of details in your supposed "plan." They are as profound and detailed as the 10,000+ words you've shomitted in all of your failed efforts to bloviate on this topic. Good job slick.
I'm not the one who has consistently claimed to have both a clue and a plan, and then time and time again failed to demonstrate either. That would be you... slick.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter