Learning From Afghanistan

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
c: Let me say this up front: The US needs to understand the important difference between what is vital and what is desirable.

M: What is the difference?

What you want (desirable) and what you need (vital) are often two separate things. What it desirable can often cloud judgment and may lead to jumping into something without fully understanding the consequences. What is vital tends to be more focused and and thought out.

c: Our emotional state after 9/11 allowed passionate ideological goals to trump concrete objectives directly tied to US vital interests.

M: What goals, what interests?

Ideological goals: Regime change, social and political advancement, creating a new and improved nation. Vital interests: Destroy/disrupt Al-Qaeda and punish Taliban.

c: As an admitted 50% neoconservative, I do believe using American economic and military power to bring "social change" to other countries can be justified.

M: How so?

I do believe some concepts and principles are superior than others and will serve the people of the US and world better. In this global landscape the US may have to use its power to promote and defend such ideals.

c: I believe idealism and moral clarity are important in US foreign policy

M: What are they?

Idealism is a belief in an ideal system, the focus being on how things should be rather than how they are. Moral clarity means understanding one's morals, how they are derived, and why they are important.

c: and unilateral action is sometimes necessary to pursue US strategic interests. HOWEVER...

M: When?

When we deem our interests in a particular situation to be important enough to override any possible lack of international support.

c: Those are desirable, and not necessarily vital.

M: What are?

Idealistic thinking

c: 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. Noble, yes... worth it, doubtful.

M: Maybe Bush was afraid somebody would vote against him if he didn't look real tough.

Maybe? Maybe he was too idealistic in his approach. Maybe it's not simply about one man. In any case you can perform psychological guesswork as much as you want, I'm more interested in specifically how we could have done things better in this thread.

c: Our interests were destroying Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, and punishing the Taliban.

M: Maybe we should have engaged them in a war of ideas. Personally I don't think insanity has much of a chance against reasonableness.

On a large scale over a long time I agree with you... better, more reasonable ideas will almost always win out over insanity most of the time. That is my ideological/idealist side speaking. My realist side also knows that in day to day interactions I may have to use other means to deal with people... or nations.

c: Instead of going all out we could have conducted punitive raids using air and some ground power, along with with satellite/ UAV coverage and human intelligence sources to locate bin Laden, al-Qaeda senior leaders and their training camps, (and Taliban leadership) attack to destroy them - and then withdraw. Followed up by promises that as long as the Taliban harbored terrorists or permitted them to operate from their territory we would continue to launch attacks on them.

M: Hind sight is 20-20 no?

Well, that's the idea... learn from history, learn from our mistakes.

c: American strategic security could have been safeguarded and most of our operations in Afghanistan completed in 2002. What did we end up with? 8 + who knows how many more years, spending $100s billions, and costing the US thousands of killed or wounded Soldiers. If we knew this cost beforehand, would we have followed this route? The costs seem to be out of proportion to what we've gained and the strategic benefit will likely be unfufilled for many years to come.

M: The Supreme Coup voted for Bush and the rest is history

:roll:

c: This is by no means some accusatory tirade against our actions, not by a long shot. But we should always be willing to engage in simple, honest analysis.

M: How? How could we have been other than what we were. Remember you wanted to talk about reality. What was is the reality.

Different choices and decisions could have led to different outcomes.

c: In future cases we should be careful about elevating what's desirable over what's vital.

M: Aside from knowing what those are how exactly will we learn that lesson?

By talking with each other and determining if something worked well (or better than something else)

c: There still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

M: How do you know? And what are all those things? Maybe there just needs to be a law that if you start a war that's a fuck-up you will pay with your life.

 

[Moonbeam]

c: What you want (desirable) and what you need (vital) are often two separate things. What it desirable can often cloud judgment and may lead to jumping into something without fully understanding the consequences. What is vital tends to be more focused and and thought out.

M: Well I would say that what is vital is what you require to survive rather than something reacquiring more thought but anyway.....

The question becomes, it seems to me, how do you correct impulsive behavior with more intelligent and focused action if your actions are impulsive based. How does an impulsive know the difference between what is vital for him and what are just his immature needs. How do you know when your thinking is clouded. Who acts knowing his judgment is clouded. People with clouded judgment don't seem to like being told so.

yllus, for example, got all huffy when I told him that his relationship with his neighbor is governed by different laws than our relations with other countries and that his rights in one case are not, as he claimed, equivalent to the other, and his impulse to kill the old lady next door he was certain was an actual need.

c: Ideological goals: Regime change, social and political advancement, creating a new and improved nation. Vital interests: Destroy/disrupt Al-Qaeda and punish Taliban.

M: The ideological goals look a lot like desire goals rather than vital goals unless you are referring to the last Presidential election. And on those vital goals you listed I would suggest more thought. The question is how to best effect those goals. We don't have to bomb somebody to destroy the threat they pose. We can change their minds, we can dry up the source of dissatisfaction that drives their membership. We could give people alternative healthy goals so they don't become fanatics, etc. In shout it is not the words that may be wrong but the assumptions that one knows what they mean in terms of actions.

c: I do believe some concepts and principles are superior than others and will serve the people of the US and world better. In this global landscape the US may have to use its power to promote and defend such ideals.

M: But do you see that everybody feels this way? Nobody believes what they do thinking, well what I think is a 4 and what the US thinks is a 10. Al-Quaeda is out to destroy us because their ideas are better than ours. They don't kill us saying, well our ideas aren't as good, but you have to die anyway. This is what I mean by being a fanatic. You are no different than the people you want to kill at all. What would make you different is if you said, I don't know which of us is right but I think I am. I will therefore work to demonstrate that my way leads to a better life than your way so how about I not kill you and you not kill me and we compete to see who can create the better life for people.

c: Idealism is a belief in an ideal system, the focus being on how things should be rather than how they are. Moral clarity means understanding one's morals, how they are derived, and why they are important.

M: Fascism and Communism are ideal systems that have killed a lot of people getting to how things should be. This is the mark of the fanatic, the right to kill in the name of the should. The Germans were very clear on Aryan supremacy and why and how important is was for the Jews to die.

The problem is that morality can be bigotry. A bigot does not know why he is a bigot, he just knows he is right. The forces that drive him are unconscious and derived from childhood experiences that he can't access consciously.

Everybody thinks he is moral. People murder because it is right that the other person die.

c: When we deem our interests in a particular situation to be important enough to override any possible lack of international support. (Regarding when to use unilateral action)

M: We did that in Iraq. It wasn't such a good idea according to many. Everybody thinks they have the judgment to make such decisions. The facts are they do not.

c: Those are desirable, and not necessarily vital.

M: What are?

c: Maybe? (regarding why Bush went to war) Maybe he was too idealistic in his approach. Maybe it's not simply about one man. In any case you can perform psychological guesswork as much as you want, I'm more interested in specifically how we could have done things better in this thread.

M: My interest is in destroying the sense of certainty that drives fanaticism or as you might call it, not separating the desirable from the vital.

c: Our interests were destroying Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, and punishing the Taliban.

---------
M: Maybe we should have engaged them in a war of ideas. Personally I don't think insanity has much of a chance against reasonableness.
----

c: On a large scale over a long time I agree with you... better, more reasonable ideas will almost always win out over insanity most of the time. That is my ideological/idealist side speaking. My realist side also knows that in day to day interactions I may have to use other means to deal with people... or nations.

M: Isn't that all spelled out in the Just War scenario, when you are in danger of imminent attack. Of course there is still the problem of being sure the imminent part is real, no, and certainty would be also dangerous there.

----------
c: Instead of going all out we could have conducted punitive raids using air and some ground power, along with with satellite/ UAV coverage and human intelligence sources to locate bin Laden, al-Qaeda senior leaders and their training camps, (and Taliban leadership) attack to destroy them - and then withdraw. Followed up by promises that as long as the Taliban harbored terrorists or permitted them to operate from their territory we would continue to launch attacks on them.

M: Hind sight is 20-20 no?
----------

c: Well, that's the idea... learn from history, learn from our mistakes.

M: But we do not learn from history, or not enough of us anyway. We react over and over is a predictable way. We are asleep to the emotions that drive us. You caution using reason but I say reason is blinded by unconscious emotional feeling. You want to study history, I think we need psychoanalysis. If we do not know the feeling that unconsciously propel our so called morality we will never leave the wheel of karma and make the same mistakes over and over again. What we need is not more history but more emotional intelligence in my opinion.

-------------
c: American strategic security could have been safeguarded and most of our operations in Afghanistan completed in 2002. What did we end up with? 8 + who knows how many more years, spending $100s billions, and costing the US thousands of killed or wounded Soldiers. If we knew this cost beforehand, would we have followed this route? The costs seem to be out of proportion to what we've gained and the strategic benefit will likely be unfufilled for many years to come.

M: The Supreme Coup voted for Bush and the rest is history
----------

c: :roll:

M: Yes but did you learn?

----------
c: This is by no means some accusatory tirade against our actions, not by a long shot. But we should always be willing to engage in simple, honest analysis.

M: How? How could we have been other than what we were. Remember you wanted to talk about reality. What was is the reality.
----------

c: Different choices and decisions could have led to different outcomes.

M: Of course, but we did exactly as we had to given who we are and what we know.

-----------------
c: In future cases we should be careful about elevating what's desirable over what's vital.

M: Aside from knowing what those are how exactly will we learn that lesson?
----------

c: By talking with each other and determining if something worked well (or better than something else)

M: So we are talking, no?

-----------
c: There still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

M: How do you know? And what are all those things? Maybe there just needs to be a law that if you start a war that's a fuck-up you will pay with your life.
-----------

c:

M: It would perhaps increase the focus and thought that separates the desirable from the vital as you originally suggested. You know, a bit of personal involvement and responsibility added to any actions we propose others will be dying to achieve.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
c: What you want (desirable) and what you need (vital) are often two separate things. What it desirable can often cloud judgment and may lead to jumping into something without fully understanding the consequences. What is vital tends to be more focused and and thought out.

M: Well I would say that what is vital is what you require to survive rather than something reacquiring more thought but anyway.....

The question becomes, it seems to me, how do you correct impulsive behavior with more intelligent and focused action if your actions are impulsive based. How does an impulsive know the difference between what is vital for him and what are just his immature needs. How do you know when your thinking is clouded. Who acts knowing his judgment is clouded. People with clouded judgment don't seem to like being told so.

Who says they are impulsive based? You? Who has impulsive based behaviors? Me? You? Everybody?

c: Ideological goals: Regime change, social and political advancement, creating a new and improved nation. Vital interests: Destroy/disrupt Al-Qaeda and punish Taliban.

M: The ideological goals look a lot like desire goals rather than vital goals unless you are referring to the last Presidential election. And on those vital goals you listed I would suggest more thought. The question is how to best effect those goals. We don't have to bomb somebody to destroy the threat they pose. We can change their minds, we can dry up the source of dissatisfaction that drives their membership. We could give people alternative healthy goals so they don't become fanatics, etc. In shout it is not the words that may be wrong but the assumptions that one knows what they mean in terms of actions.

Those seem like desirable (and idealistic) goals to me. But my point in the OP is these noble ideas can come with incredible costs and are incredibly difficult to achieve... perhaps impossible in some situations. Acting on our highest idealistic desires isn't always possible and in some cases can backfire badly. As I said in the OP our actions must be tempered with an adequate sense of realism, we have to tie our desires to what's realistically feasible.

Trying to change the minds of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, dry up the source of dissatisfaction that drives their membership, and giving them healthy goals in response to 9/11 isn't a solution to the immediate problem. A response need not be impulsive, it should be effective. What I outlined in the OP probably would have met our major security interests in a fraction of the time and cost.

c: I do believe some concepts and principles are superior than others and will serve the people of the US and world better. In this global landscape the US may have to use its power to promote and defend such ideals.

M: But do you see that everybody feels this way? Nobody believes what they do thinking, well what I think is a 4 and what the US thinks is a 10. Al-Quaeda is out to destroy us because their ideas are better than ours. They don't kill us saying, well our ideas aren't as good, but you have to die anyway. This is what I mean by being a fanatic. You are no different than the people you want to kill at all. What would make you different is if you said, I don't know which of us is right but I think I am. I will therefore work to demonstrate that my way leads to a better life than your way so how about I not kill you and you not kill me and we compete to see who can create the better life for people.

Because you cannot create a better life for people unless you have values, and you cannot have values unless you judge ideas, and you cannot judge ideas without the concepts of right and wrong (morality). Destroying the marketplace of ideas because ideas can have bad consequences isn't the answer. Throwing up your hands in frustration and adopting nihilism is not the answer. Giving up on morality just because it's hard to deal with, and often ugly to watch in practice, is not the answer.

Hey, don't argue with me. You're going to have to disprove the father of modern philosophy Descartes (who said the world is rational) and the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment, including Sir Francis Bacon (who said man can understand the world)... Western Civilization is on my side.

c: Idealism is a belief in an ideal system, the focus being on how things should be rather than how they are. Moral clarity means understanding one's morals, how they are derived, and why they are important.

M: Fascism and Communism are ideal systems that have killed a lot of people getting to how things should be. This is the mark of the fanatic, the right to kill in the name of the should. The Germans were very clear on Aryan supremacy and why and how important is was for the Jews to die.

The problem is that morality can be bigotry. A bigot does not know why he is a bigot, he just knows he is right. The forces that drive him are unconscious and derived from childhood experiences that he can't access consciously.

Everybody thinks he is moral. People murder because it is right that the other person die.

So the answer is to say nobody is right... and then nobody will die? See above. Your form of idealism looks to me to be just as -if not more- dangerous than fascism or communism. Devolving humanity to animalistic creatures who cannot determine right or wrong, good or bad, and recasting civilization into a free for all isn't my idea of a good time. It would never truly succeed... man will do what's in his nature- think, and he will develop some sense of right and wrong (not matter how corrupt) because that's how we're wired- to survive. Your fantasy could never fully be realized, yet it would create an unthinkably nasty anarchy.

c: When we deem our interests in a particular situation to be important enough to override any possible lack of international support. (Regarding when to use unilateral action)

M: We did that in Iraq. It wasn't such a good idea according to many. Everybody thinks they have the judgment to make such decisions. The facts are they do not.

Nothing is perfect and mistakes are made. Is that the reason we should stop trying? My idea is that we mitigate the potential mistakes and use lessons learned... not give up on thinking.

c: Those are desirable, and not necessarily vital.

M: What are?

Yes

c: Maybe? (regarding why Bush went to war) Maybe he was too idealistic in his approach. Maybe it's not simply about one man. In any case you can perform psychological guesswork as much as you want, I'm more interested in specifically how we could have done things better in this thread.

M: My interest is in destroying the sense of certainty that drives fanaticism or as you might call it, not separating the desirable from the vital.

Perhaps you should lesson your own sense of certainty.

c: Our interests were destroying Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, and punishing the Taliban.

---------
M: Maybe we should have engaged them in a war of ideas. Personally I don't think insanity has much of a chance against reasonableness.
----

c: On a large scale over a long time I agree with you... better, more reasonable ideas will almost always win out over insanity most of the time. That is my ideological/idealist side speaking. My realist side also knows that in day to day interactions I may have to use other means to deal with people... or nations.

M: Isn't that all spelled out in the Just War scenario, when you are in danger of imminent attack. Of course there is still the problem of being sure the imminent part is real, no, and certainty would be also dangerous there.

The idea is to us reason, logic, and best possible evidence to reach conclusions (however certain or uncertain). The alternative is to use no reason, no logic, and no evidence, OR, not make conclusions at all.

----------
c: Instead of going all out we could have conducted punitive raids using air and some ground power, along with with satellite/ UAV coverage and human intelligence sources to locate bin Laden, al-Qaeda senior leaders and their training camps, (and Taliban leadership) attack to destroy them - and then withdraw. Followed up by promises that as long as the Taliban harbored terrorists or permitted them to operate from their territory we would continue to launch attacks on them.

M: Hind sight is 20-20 no?
----------

c: Well, that's the idea... learn from history, learn from our mistakes.

M: But we do not learn from history, or not enough of us anyway. We react over and over is a predictable way. We are asleep to the emotions that drive us. You caution using reason but I say reason is blinded by unconscious emotional feeling. You want to study history, I think we need psychoanalysis. If we do not know the feeling that unconsciously propel our so called morality we will never leave the wheel of karma and make the same mistakes over and over again. What we need is not more history but more emotional intelligence in my opinion.

I agree humanity needs more emotional intelligence, but I don't think mass psychoanalysis is the answer to that.

-------------
c: American strategic security could have been safeguarded and most of our operations in Afghanistan completed in 2002. What did we end up with? 8 + who knows how many more years, spending $100s billions, and costing the US thousands of killed or wounded Soldiers. If we knew this cost beforehand, would we have followed this route? The costs seem to be out of proportion to what we've gained and the strategic benefit will likely be unfufilled for many years to come.

M: The Supreme Coup voted for Bush and the rest is history
----------

c: :roll:

M: Yes but did you learn?

I learn things every day... do you still learn things about yourself and the world, or have you already found "The Answer?"

----------
c: This is by no means some accusatory tirade against our actions, not by a long shot. But we should always be willing to engage in simple, honest analysis.

M: How? How could we have been other than what we were. Remember you wanted to talk about reality. What was is the reality.
----------

c: Different choices and decisions could have led to different outcomes.

M: Of course, but we did exactly as we had to given who we are and what we know.

I'm not a big believer in determination. We reap what we sow and what we sow is entirely up to us.

-----------------
c: In future cases we should be careful about elevating what's desirable over what's vital.

M: Aside from knowing what those are how exactly will we learn that lesson?
----------

c: By talking with each other and determining if something worked well (or better than something else)

M: So we are talking, no?

Yep, feels great eh?

-----------
c: There still needs to be that Realist, pragmatic, (almost ammoral) aspect, an emotionless detachment that can help determine purpose, method and end state within a proper cost/benefit framework.

M: How do you know? And what are all those things? Maybe there just needs to be a law that if you start a war that's a fuck-up you will pay with your life.
-----------

c:

M: It would perhaps increase the focus and thought that separates the desirable from the vital as you originally suggested. You know, a bit of personal involvement and responsibility added to any actions we propose others will be dying to achieve.

Probably not.

 

[Moonbeam]

c: Who says they are impulsive based? You? Who has impulsive based behaviors? Me? You? Everybody?

M: Yes but how do the blind, everybody, see where they are blind?

c: Those seem like desirable (and idealistic) goals to me. But my point in the OP is these noble ideas can come with incredible costs and are incredibly difficult to achieve... perhaps impossible in some situations. Acting on our highest idealistic desires isn't always possible and in some cases can backfire badly. As I said in the OP our actions must be tempered with an adequate sense of realism, we have to tie our desires to what's realistically feasible.

M: Yes and what I suggest is that if we really have wisdom we will take the long hard road because all others lead to disaster. The world can only be saved by love. I think that was the point Jesus came to make. An eye for an eye and the law lead only to blind compliant robots.

c: I do believe some concepts and principles are superior than others and will serve the people of the US and world better. In this global landscape the US may have to use its power to promote and defend such ideals.

c: Because you cannot create a better life for people unless you have values, and you cannot have values unless you judge ideas, and you cannot judge ideas without the concepts of right and wrong (morality). Destroying the marketplace of ideas because ideas can have bad consequences isn't the answer. Throwing up your hands in frustration and adopting nihilism is not the answer. Giving up on morality just because it's hard to deal with, and often ugly to watch in practice, is not the answer.

M: How do you know? I died to all that stuff you hold precious and it killed me. How do you know where nihilism leads if you haven't died to hope. In the East this is represented by the seeker who has a full tea cup. The wise man can pour no knowledge into a full cup. And Bacon also mentions this.

c: Hey, don't argue with me. You're going to have to disprove the father of modern philosophy Descartes (who said the world is rational) and the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment, including Sir Francis Bacon (who said man can understand the world)... Western Civilization is on my side.

M: I killed them all as I grabbed each in a vain hope one could save me.

c: So the answer is to say nobody is right... and then nobody will die? See above. Your form of idealism looks to me to be just as -if not more- dangerous than fascism or communism. Devolving humanity to animalistic creatures who cannot determine right or wrong, good or bad, and recasting civilization into a free for all isn't my idea of a good time. It would never truly succeed... man will do what's in his nature- think, and he will develop some sense of right and wrong (not matter how corrupt) because that's how we're wired- to survive. Your fantasy could never fully be realized, yet it would create an unthinkably nasty anarchy.

M: I understand how you see this. I had the same feelings. I fought to retain morality and truth with all my might. Losing them killed me, as I said. I found out what the blackness of the soul is all about, total despair and total hopelessness.

The secret, of course, is that you do not devolve into an animalistic creature who knows no right and wrong, you become what you were born to be, a chimpanzee filled with enormous compassion and love. Everything you could ever dream of has always been who you really are.

c: Nothing is perfect and mistakes are made. Is that the reason we should stop trying? My idea is that we mitigate the potential mistakes and use lessons learned... not give up on thinking.

M No need to think when you can feel it all. Thought is of the past. Thought is the Rodin's thinker, doubled over into himself. The Buddha with a silent mind becomes the universe.

c: Perhaps you should lesson your own sense of certainty.

M: It is odd to know you do not know.

c: The idea is to us reason, logic, and best possible evidence to reach conclusions (however certain or uncertain). The alternative is to use no reason, no logic, and no evidence, OR, not make conclusions at all.

M: One can do what one can. Conclude or not, but do not become attached to either.

c: I agree humanity needs more emotional intelligence, but I don't think mass psychoanalysis is the answer to that.

M: Well I see no sign it's going to happen.

c: I learn things every day... do you still learn things about yourself and the world, or have you already found "The Answer?"

Most of what I learn is that I don't know what I thought I did. I unlearn a lot.

c: I'm not a big believer in determination. We reap what we sow and what we sow is entirely up to us.

M: Well reaping what we sow is pretty deterministic and what we sow is not up to us if we do not understand the fact that we have unconscious motivations.

c: Yep, feels great eh?

M: great!

c: Probably not.

M: Well, probably not going to happen at any rate.


Oops, forgot the Bacon:

Bacon's Philosophy
Bacon developed a dislike for Aristotelian philosophy at Trinity College, and he also opposed Platonism. He felt that Aristotle's system was more suited to disputation than to discovery of new truth and that Plato's doctrine of innate knowledge turned the mind inward upon itself, "away from observation and away from things." Bacon's new method emphasized "the commerce of the mind with things." Science was to be experimental, to take note of how human activity produces changes in things and not merely to record what happens independently of what men do. This is part of what Bacon means by "active science." Still more fundamental is an ethical component. Science should be a practical instrument for human betterment. Bacon's attitude is best summed up in a passage from "Plan of the Work" in The Great Instauration, describing the sixth part, on "The New Philosophy or Active Science." "Man is the helper and interpreter of Nature. He can only act and understand insofar as by working upon her he has come to perceive her order. Beyond this he has neither knowledge nor power. For there is no strength that can break the causal chain. Accordingly these twin goals, human science and human power, come in the end to one. To be ignorant of causes is to be frustrated in action."

In the aphorism which concludes Book I of Novum organum, two rules of scientific procedure are emphasized: "to drop all preconceived notions and make a fresh start; and ? to refrain for a while from trying to rise to the most general conclusions or even near to them." The fresh start requires the mind to overcome the influence of four "ldols," tendencies that inhibit the search for truth. The Idols of the Tribe are common to mankind generally. The Idols of the Cave are the tendencies of each man to see truth in relation to his own particular interests and disposition. The Idols of the Theater are the traditional philosophical systems. The Idols of the Market Place are errors that arise from language.

Note what a fix we are in if Bacon is right about the ignorance of causes leading to frustration in action, if, in fact, we are unconscious of what we feel? He also says we have to drop preconceived notions. Good advise if you can see the ones you have. I maintain we are blind to them which is why I like the notion of letting of of everything.

 

[Lemon law]

As I slowly recover from a hard disk drive failure, its time to finally answer cwjerome, as this thread spins off into silly side arguments.

But from the hindsight of 2020 perspective, 911 made a US occupation of Afghanistan almost inevitable, just as our abandonment of Afghanistan after the Russians left made the rise of the some local homegrown movement like the Taliban inevitable. And thus far, from any idealism of making things better for the Afghan people, we are a miserable zero out of two. If the USA had planned to fail in this Afghan occupation, we could not have done much worse. And in a nutshell, we forgot what people all over the world want from a government.

In his far earlier page one of this thread post, cwjerome mentioned a big from the top down occupation like we had post WW2 in Germany and Japan. But what cw failed to realize, is that those post WW2 occupations succeeded, not because they were from the top down, but because they touched all the way to the bottom man on the street. To borrow a phrase from a fascist dictator, it make the trains run on time, as government, top to bottom, simply worked. ( without the need to be fascist and shoot railroad personnel. )

Instead, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we tried the same top down strategy, but without enough troops to reach the man on the street. And what we got, as a result, was anarchy as every local strong man was empowered to bring some order out of the resulting chaos. These local people are not all per say evil, they are simply the result of
the people's need to band together for protection.

And then to add insult to injury, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our leaders never thought about getting government to work, and worse yet, the pressing need to get in done very very fast. And in Afghanistan, after seven plus years, we have yet to even START doing that job of getting government to function in anyplace other than the center of beautiful downtown Kabul.

But for an average Afghan who does not live in Kabul, their lives are pretty miserable. Their courts function only by bribes, warlords rule the countryside, drug money corrupts everyone in authority, and the crushing poverty aside, they want the certainty that comes from a government that functions fairly and by rules they understand. And instead, they have anything but an understanding of the rules while they live in a shooting gallery. After the Russians left Afghanistan, conditions are much as they are now. And it also
explains why the Taliban were able to recruit some many idealistic youth, to bring order out of the chaos. And why the Taliban was so successful in bringing an order out of chaos using brutal means. And ending a five year long Afghan civil war. Bad as the Taliban are, it was still much better than the Anarchy, chaos, corruption, and violence that ruled the day before.

And here the US occupation is today, seven plus years in, and Afghanistan is still as bad off as it was after the Russians left. No wonder the Taliban is coming back, because compared to what the USA has brought as a daily reality of life, makes the previous Taliban government look like paradise.

I ask you, would you tolerate the government the USA has brought to Afghanistan, if you lived there?

Nor does the government of Afghanistan have to be that bad, even given our inadequate troop numbers. The USA and Nato just have to tend to their knitting, and start rooting out the corruption and drug money, make the courts function correctly, but instead we just assumed the magic word of democracy would be a panacea. And while I don't think Karzai is corrupt, his government certainly is, and Karzai is simply the wrong man, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time.

And now

 

[DealMonkey]

I thought Rumsfeld's desire for a smaller, lighter force in Iraq was a abject failure. In fact, I know it was. What makes you think it would work any better in Afghanistan?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As I slowly recover from a hard disk drive failure, its time to finally answer cwjerome, as this thread spins off into silly side arguments.
<...snip...>

But you didn't answer me. This is the same armchair quarterbacking we have be subjected to weekly for years. The point of the OP was things could have been better, I think that's been established without your own heavily repeated mantra. I laid out an alternative approach and explained why it would have been better. You need to stop beating your dead horse and say something different.

It's an easy thing to criticize, criticize, criticize. What have we learned? What would have worked better? What are some possible solutions? And mostly directly, what should the US have done in Afghanistan after 9/11?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I thought Rumsfeld's desire for a smaller, lighter force in Iraq was a abject failure. In fact, I know it was. What makes you think it would work any better in Afghanistan?

I'm not sure who this is directed at, but as I explained earlier, I believe there should have been no occupation and nation building. My neocon side likes the idea but to do such a thing effectively we needed 3-4 times the resources, which I believe just isn't worth the costs.

Once again: "Our interests were destroying Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, and punishing the Taliban. Instead of going all out we could have conducted punitive raids using air and some ground power, along with with satellite/ UAV coverage and human intelligence sources to locate bin Laden, al-Qaeda senior leaders and their training camps, (and Taliban leadership) attack to destroy them - and then withdraw. Followed up by promises that as long as the Taliban harbored terrorists or permitted them to operate from their territory we would continue to launch attacks on them."

Major military operations would have been largely over within one year. By having a much more narrowly defined mission we could have met our security interests for a fraction of the trouble.

 

[Moonbeam]

Could it be possible that our intentions in Afghanistan were never really about 9/11 and Al Quaeda, but about securing a Unical pipeline across that country. Wasn't Karzai our guy for that deal? Maybe all our real objectives were met, oil men using US military power for oil companies?

 

[Jaskalas]

My recommendation for Iran has been ?go in, destroy it, get out?. Sounds similar to your realization of what we should have done in Afghanistan.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
My recommendation for Iran has been ?go in, destroy it, get out?. Sounds similar to your realization of what we should have done in Afghanistan.

We attacked Afghanistan supposedly because that is where the Taliban were protecting the people responsible for 9/11.

I don't think we are going to attack Iran because your fear of them caused you to shit your pants.

 

[Lemon law]

cwjerome says, " I'm not sure who this is directed at, but as I explained earlier, I believe there should have been no occupation and nation building. My neocon side likes the idea but to do such a thing effectively we needed 3-4 times the resources, which I believe just isn't worth the costs.

The problem with that analysis, is that it rests on what the real end costs are, not just short term, but long term. Its somewhat the lesson Europe learned from WW1. It cost a huge fortune, in money and blood, to beat Germany in WW1, but when the terms of the peace were too draconian, it made a WW2 inevitable.

And we are repeating the mistake again and again Afghanistan. First we called forth terrorists from all over the world to fight the Russian Occupation of Afghanistan , re badged them as freedom fighters, and it worked so well short term, because all we had to do is supply some surface to air missiles and CIA training, and those terrorists forced the Russians out. At which point we discarded Afghanistan as a no longer needed tool.

The points are (1) that one of those freedom fighters was Ossama Bin Laden who went on to bigger and better things. (2) The victor in the five year Afghan civil war that followed was the Taliban.

Then ole cwjerome forgets to connect the dots, when a little after a decade later, thanks to the CIA training Ossama Bin Laden and the Al-Quida organization he helped set up hatched a plot now known as 911. And all that resulted from the same initial aid we gave the mujaheddin which was based on, ?go in, destroy it, get out?

As for the Taliban, even if the USA did not formally recognize their government, pre-911 we were still, with dreams of sugar plums and pipelines, as thick as thieves in bed with the Taliban.

And after 911, we all know what happened, we demanded the Taliban turn over Bin Laden when they refused, we militarily toppled their government. Thus making the mistake that GHB avoided in Iraq in the early 1990's, when we had a limited objective, and that was to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait.

Because when the successful objective is to topple an entire government, the resultant anarchy and chaos has almost infinite long term costs.

And far from mere carping criticize, criticize, and criticize, I note Nato is still in Afghanistan seven years later with the military part of the mission already accomplished in the first four months. And even with inadequate troop numbers, if Nato had concentrated on building a corruption free Afghan government, Nato could have won quite a few years ago. And even now its not too late to start, but that is the Nato legacy, they never started building anything institutions that can last, and instead seem to think they can kill kill kill their way out of the problem. Meanwhile our so called war on terror has been a total failure, because it creates more terrorists in the process.

 

[cwjerome]

Simply amazing... another regurgitated LL lecture without a simple answer. You haven't said anything here that you already haven't said 1367 times on P&N. How is it you funnel any question or discussion into the same steaming pile of history lesson? Are you capable of saying anything outside your script?

What have we learned? What would have worked better? What are some possible solutions? And mostly directly, what should the US have done in Afghanistan after 9/11?

Please don't reply with more historical talking points. Answer the questions.

 

[Lemon law]

As we see yet another cwjerome post in which he simply refuses to learn, much less apply the lessons of history. As if the definition of insanity being, if we do the same thing over and over again, we will somehow get a different outcome.

But to humor cwjerome, I will try to answer some of those what would have worked better questions.

1. We should have done what GHB did in regard to Iraq invading Kuwait. Namely to build a big and overwhelming coalition. Meanwhile, even if we got sucker punched, its important to keep your eyes on only the person that sucker punched you, and that was and remains Ossama Bin Laden and Al-Quida. And for the record, if GWB would have kept the diplomatic pressure on the Taliban government, there were some reasons to hope they would have given him up. But as soon as GWB had his eyes on adding war time President to his resume, he then basically decided to take on both Al-Quida as a small potatoes organization plus the Taliban which was far larger problem. And in GWB's hurry to have his revenge eaten hot, he forgot to bring anything of a land based army with him. But with the tremendous air power the USA and Nato had as an asset, they could solve the you and whose army problem by allying themselves to the most corrupt force in Afghanistan, namely the losing side in the Afghan civil war, aka the Northern alliance.
And if anyone wants to know why the Taliban enjoyed popular support, they need look no further than the Northern Alliance that embodied organized corruption and drug trafficking on a national stage. And were so bad, that they made the Taliban looks like boys scouts in comparison.

And that is exactly who the USA and Nato allied with, short term it worked great, with US and Nato air power, and the Northern alliance rearmed on the ground, the Taliban was soon running for the nearest place of safety, namely the tribal areas of Pakistan. But when we had the lot briefly trapped in Tora Bora, Nato wimped on sending their own troops to make sure we at least got Osama Bin Laden. And instead Nato decided to only let the Northern Alliance personnel catch the bullets, as Nato discovered that once a rat always a rat, because getting the Bin Laden was simply not a Northern alliance priority. As a result Bin Laden and the top leadership of Al-Quida escaped the trap at Tora Bora, and as soon as the Northern Alliance's rivals for power were out of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance had fufilled their part of the bargain, and rushed back to set up corruption and drug trafficking at their same old stands. And given all the Northern Alliances experience, they knew how to do corruption right. So for lesson one mistake not to make, 2020 foresight, making an alliance with the Northern Alliance it was a dumb dumb and dumber decision. And 2020 hindsight its looks no smarter.

But even that mistake was not fatal, the US and Nato had the military power to deliver the kind of good governance that would have taken the wind out the Taliban's sails. And instead, we rushed to set up a democracy that was sure to be corrupted by drug money. And instead, the Taliban is able to say, see we were right all along, the problem is the Western devils, and we need your help to throw the rascals out. And now six years later, the US and Nato have made only negative headway, because we are too cheap to engage in what we needed to do in the first place, namely nation building.

But what were the alternatives before, let Afghanistan be a terrorists playground? But we must also understand two things about the prior and maybe future Taliban government of Afghanistan. (1) Given their experience with Al-Quida, their movement, as a home grown movement is basically limited to governing Afghanistan, and once burned by Al-Quida that brought the wrath of the world down on them, they are not likely to let an Al-Quida, with its international terrorist focus, do it to them again. (2) That Taliban type government with all their religious zeal and excesses tend to have low lifespans, 20 years or less before they moderate, all on their own, into more rational governments. Of course that is only on their own terms application, as long as there is an external outside threat like Nato, these Taliban type zanies never moderate.

All these things were predictable long before we invaded Afghanistan, but Dumsfeld had a special arrogance that told him, because he was a neocon, these rules don't apply to him and GWB believed him. But bottom line, its the governance stupid, Nato has failed to deliver and will keep failing until they do.

Sorry, cwjerome, why do I think you will think this is another historical rant, but until Nato delivers good governance to Afghanistan, they will get the same results. People are people the world over and they want the same basic things. And we need some top leadership in our military who understand the killing people and breaking things is not what we need now to solve the problem.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But to humor cwjerome, I will try to answer some of those what would have worked better questions.

1. We should have done what GHB did in regard to Iraq invading Kuwait. Namely to build a big and overwhelming coalition. And for the record, if GWB would have kept the diplomatic pressure on the Taliban government, there were some reasons to hope they would have given him up. But as soon as GWB had his eyes on adding war time President to his resume, he then basically decided to take on both Al-Quida as a small potatoes organization plus the Taliban which was far larger problem.

So this is what I can finally squeeze out of you. Essentially, you believe the US should not have used military action in Afghanistan, and tried really hard to get the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden.

Could you explain a little more about why the US should have stayed out and how this course of action would have served the US better?

 

[Lemon law]

Cwjerome can't even get his response right in saying, " So this is what I can finally squeeze out of you. Essentially, you believe the US should not have used military action in Afghanistan, and tried really hard to get the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden.

Could you explain a little more about why the US should have stayed out and how this course of action would have served the US better?"

Because I don't necessarily believe that a military response in Afghanistan, after 911, was in itself wrong. In MHO, a military response in Iraq was clearly wrongly applied by GWB, but my jury is still out on Afghanistan after 911.

Regardless if the decision was military or not, regarding Afghanistan post 911, that is not where the hinge of fate mistake was made, the US and Nato mistake is and remains in thinking we could run a military occupation that totally incompetently and not have the same stinking turd results. Its has been a lose lose lose situation for everyone but Al-Quida and drug traffickers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Cwjerome can't even get his response right in saying, " So this is what I can finally squeeze out of you. Essentially, you believe the US should not have used military action in Afghanistan, and tried really hard to get the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden.

Could you explain a little more about why the US should have stayed out and how this course of action would have served the US better?"

Because I don't necessarily believe that a military response in Afghanistan, after 911, was in itself wrong. In MHO, a military response in Iraq was clearly wrongly applied by GWB, but my jury is still out on Afghanistan after 911.

Regardless if the decision was military or not, regarding Afghanistan post 911, that is not where the hinge of fate mistake was made, the US and Nato mistake is and remains in thinking we could run a military occupation that totally incompetently and not have the same stinking turd results. Its has been a lose lose lose situation for everyone but Al-Quida and drug traffickers.

So how do you run a welfare program for Afghanistan while stiffing hurricane victims?

 

[Lemon law]

Moonbeam asks, " So how do you run a welfare program for Afghanistan while stiffing hurricane victims? "

Among other things, Moonbeam misses the point, we have spent far far far more on Iraq than Afghanistan, and in Afghanistan, its just been the difference between stupid and smart. The lack of resources allocated to either quagmire not with standing, once you buy into a military occupation and the existing government is toppled, its no longer a military problem and becomes a political problem. And if we fail at the political problem of good governance that must reach down, bottom up, to the man and woman on the street, failure will inevitably follow.

As for the domestic Hurricane victims GWB stiffed because we sent our reserves and equipment to Iraq, they only suffered a week of total neglect, maybe we should ask the Afghans how many years and years of neglect we have inflicted on them. Don't dare ask that same question of Iraq, because the answer is far worse.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Cwjerome can't even get his response right in saying, " So this is what I can finally squeeze out of you. Essentially, you believe the US should not have used military action in Afghanistan, and tried really hard to get the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden.

Could you explain a little more about why the US should have stayed out and how this course of action would have served the US better?"

Because I don't necessarily believe that a military response in Afghanistan, after 911, was in itself wrong. In MHO, a military response in Iraq was clearly wrongly applied by GWB, but my jury is still out on Afghanistan after 911.

Regardless if the decision was military or not, regarding Afghanistan post 911, that is not where the hinge of fate mistake was made, the US and Nato mistake is and remains in thinking we could run a military occupation that totally incompetently and not have the same stinking turd results. Its has been a lose lose lose situation for everyone but Al-Quida and drug traffickers.

If I can't get a response right it's because of the convoluted bullshit you always wrap your posts around. It's hard to get anything meaningful out of the LL turdpile. You bring up Iraq and GWB and of course repeat for the 1368th time how crappy the US and NATO have been with the occupation, but still offer little-to-zero on ideas, suggestions, and what ought to have happened.

Let me try and decode your cryptogram again. Military force was justified but we ran the occupation wrong. Please tell us what the US and NATO should have done and what you think the end result would have been if they had followed your plan.

 

[Lemon law]

Cwjerome, if you failed to learn from my previous post that concerned allying with the Northern Alliance, there is simply no hope for you learning anything.

If you lack the empathy to walk even a inch in Afghan shoes, again, there is no hope for you.

But when it comes to that bottom line question in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when asked was life better or worse for you before the US started its occupation compared to now, in both countries the overwhelming answer is, that the US occupation made things worse.

Maybe that answer could be forgivable if the question was asked just in the first few months or a year after the occupation started, but when we are five to seven years into an occupations now, its a pretty damning answer to swallow, especially when there is little remaining faith that things will get better until the US leaves.

But what it really tells us in Afghanistan, that as damn bad and rotten as the Taliban is, Nato really had to reach far to somehow manage to be worse than the Taliban.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Cwjerome, if you failed to learn from my previous post that concerned allying with the Northern Alliance, there is simply no hope for you learning anything.

If you lack the empathy to walk even a inch in Afghan shoes, again, there is no hope for you.

But when it comes to that bottom line question in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when asked was life better or worse for you before the US started its occupation compared to now, in both countries the overwhelming answer is, that the US occupation made things worse.

Maybe that answer could be forgivable if the question was asked just in the first few months or a year after the occupation started, but when we are five to seven years into an occupations now, its a pretty damning answer to swallow, especially when there is little remaining faith that things will get better until the US leaves.

But what it really tells us in Afghanistan, that as damn bad and rotten as the Taliban is, Nato really had to reach far to somehow manage to be worse than the Taliban.

Please tell us what the US and NATO should have done and what you think the end result would have been if they had followed your plan.

 

[Lemon law]

Even though the answer is rather obvious, cwjerome still asks, " Please tell us what the US and NATO should have done and what you think the end result would have been if they had followed your plan."

Even though it would have taken longer to build a coalition of troops needed to topple the Taliban government once a decision was made to occupy, allying with the Northern Alliance was a giant mistake. Because once Al-Quida and the Taliban were forced out of Afghanistan, the Nato priority had to be building a corruption free government that worked for the Afghan people. Had Nato even made a half heart ed effort, things would be much better, and it would not take much more of an effort to make Afghanistan into a shining role model for the entire region.

And in such a situation, there would be no way the Afghan people would tolerate the Taliban with its brutality, and Al-Quida would find its self with even less welcome. That is what could have happened, if Nato did not run its occupation so incompetently. Sad to say, Nato made its own bed and what could have happened did not happen.

Does that finally answer your question cw?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Moonbeam asks, " So how do you run a welfare program for Afghanistan while stiffing hurricane victims? "

Among other things, Moonbeam misses the point, we have spent far far far more on Iraq than Afghanistan, and in Afghanistan, its just been the difference between stupid and smart. The lack of resources allocated to either quagmire not with standing, once you buy into a military occupation and the existing government is toppled, its no longer a military problem and becomes a political problem. And if we fail at the political problem of good governance that must reach down, bottom up, to the man and woman on the street, failure will inevitably follow.

As for the domestic Hurricane victims GWB stiffed because we sent our reserves and equipment to Iraq, they only suffered a week of total neglect, maybe we should ask the Afghans how many years and years of neglect we have inflicted on them. Don't dare ask that same question of Iraq, because the answer is far worse.

Let me put it a different way. What Republican administration is going to do a welfare program in a foreign country when they make it a political virtue to eliminate welfare at home. Republicans and those on welfare would destroy them if they did. Your plan in not realistic for Republicans and would not even be easy for Democrats because it would piss Americans off. In short, I think what you advocate is a bit of a pipe dream.

 

[Lemon law]

Once again, Moonbeam misses the point in saying, " Let me put it a different way. What Republican administration is going to do a welfare program in a foreign country when they make it a political virtue to eliminate welfare at home. Republicans and those on welfare would destroy them if they did. Your plan in not realistic for Republicans and would not even be easy for Democrats because it would piss Americans off. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the Moonbeam plan of free welfare for everyone might work in someplace like the United States, but in Iraq and Afghanistan it really fails, because the worry there is less on where your next meal is coming from or free resultant housing, and more concerns am I even safe in my own bed? And when the daily question becomes, who is going to kill me, does it make any difference if the average Iraqi or Afghan wonders if their murders will be US troops, local ethnic cleansing squads, or a terrorist bomb.

In the USA we are accustomed to being safe, which is why losing nearly 3000 lives in just one day on 911 was so shocking, but for Iraqis, its not a one day thing, and for at least three years, 911 type events were a daily reality.

At least under Saddam, as long as one did not cry out publically that Saddam was a fink, the average Iraqi at least knew the rules of the game.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even though the answer is rather obvious, cwjerome still asks, " Please tell us what the US and NATO should have done and what you think the end result would have been if they had followed your plan."

Even though it would have taken longer to build a coalition of troops needed to topple the Taliban government once a decision was made to occupy, allying with the Northern Alliance was a giant mistake. Because once Al-Quida and the Taliban were forced out of Afghanistan, the Nato priority had to be building a corruption free government that worked for the Afghan people. Had Nato even made a half heart ed effort, things would be much better, and it would not take much more of an effort to make Afghanistan into a shining role model for the entire region.

And in such a situation, there would be no way the Afghan people would tolerate the Taliban with its brutality, and Al-Quida would find its self with even less welcome. That is what could have happened, if Nato did not run its occupation so incompetently. Sad to say, Nato made its own bed and what could have happened did not happen.

Does that finally answer your question cw?

Pretty much, yes. I don't too much agree with you that by tweaking a few things here and there (like not allying with the Northern Alliance) the occupation would have been much more successful. I do not think some minor changes would have changed much at all. We would still be facing the same basic issues 8 years afterward. Here's why...

Basically you make it sound too easy. Well, doing what you say would not change the basic facts. Afghanistan was one the the poorest countries on earth, barely operating as a "nation," practically no central government, no unifying aspects whatsoever, barely any education, violent, tribal, and oh, over 30 million people in some of the roughest terrain in the world. And we're supposed to go in, stabilize things, root out an insurgency, and build a decent country from scratch under these conditions in a few years? This isn't a monumental task, it's damn near impossible.

This isn't to say NATO is blameless because they could have done things better and smarter. But even then, this would still be a long, drawn out process. To attain at least the same level of force concentration as in Kosovo (where NATO was moderately successful), the ISAF -now about 58,000 strong- would have to provide more than 700,000 soldiers. They don't have that many Soldiers. And that was in relatively wonderful conditions compared to the complete craphole that is Afghanistan... nevermind the tough as hell regional dimensions that weren't present in Kosovo either.

The bottom line it's a failed situation and in hindsight, we should not have been so ambitious. It's simply not worth it. In a time period of approx 1 year, with a fraction of the dollars and blood, we could have engaged in military operations -minus the occupation- to destroy and disrupt Al Qaeda and punish the Taliban. That's it, that's all. There had better be a real good reason (and practical/doable) for us to nationbuild a country that we're not happy with.