Originally posted by: screech
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse
Where's the global outcry against such inhumane behavior?! Douchebags like Lemon Law spend all their energy attacking and discounting those of us who are actively working to stop such atrocities, yet have no energy left to condemn the real evil...
why is that?
I think I know why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling me a douche bag may make palehorse feel better as Nato utterly fails in Afghanistan, but believe it or not I share exactly the same end goals you do.
What I disagree with is the means you are using, because the tactics you advocate are bringing only anarchy, and its just makes it worse for everyone in the region except for Al-Quida and the Taliban. When Nato keeps losing the hearts and minds of 31 million Afghans, it only empowers terrorists, And that I do not like one bit.
Hopefully Obama and Petraeus will bring in smarter strategies that will result in Nato reversing the trend lines of doing worse and worse every year.
Iraq only improved after the USA and other coalition partners quit trying to kill all armed groups and instead sought political accommodations. Yet we can't learn the same lessons in Afghanistan.
I don't suppose you could venture a guess as to why, in your words, Nato is so utterly failing? Judging from your posts here, you seem to think this is because Nato isn't winning the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghan people. I think you need to look a little deeper here, because it isn't nearly that simple.....but yes, we actually can learn something from Iraq.
How did Iraq get better, you might ask, and how can we apply those concepts here? Arguably the war in Iraq got better when the Iraqi people (Sunni in particular) said "fuck it, let's tell the Americans where the insurgents are so those assholes can die" after getting fed up with the fact that the insurgents were practically killing everyone, without regard for the lives of the Iraqis (or Sunnis in this case, but you get the picture). However, this required something immensely important--which you always seem to ignore--in order for this to happen: the idea that whoever was going to "turn in" the insurgents could actually count on American military power to
wipe out the enemy and provide security, followed by and in conjunction with diplomatic efforts to ensure that such "informants" would retain their status or power as they saw fit. In short, this type of victory needed both diplomatic (for intelligence purposes as well as future power-sharing agreements) parts and military parts (to destroy the enemy so revenge killings could not occur and to provide security once a town was 'liberated' from the insurgents, whoever they may be). Economic action to improve the quality of life so radical action becomes less likely and less favorably viewed is a background task that should be pursued at all times.
Now, how do we apply that to Afghanistan? The problems in Afghanistan are a bit tougher to tackle. In Iraq, for instance, if someone wanted to report the location of some insurgents, that wasn't particularly difficult. Compare that to Afghanistan: at some points, the Taliban has tried to ban cell phones so that any communication beyond one's own village was essentially impossible. In general, the Taliban doesn't win hearts and minds; it oppresses people who can't fight back because America simply doesn't have the strength to guaruntee any type of security, whereas the Taliban can promise a very horrible death to anyone who opposes it. Do you really think this is how to "win hearts and minds"? Nato gives people the option of having a choice in their destiny without enough military force to back it up. Sure, you have the choice to vote--or, you can choose to live, and have your wife and kids left alive, instead of dragged out into the street and shot because you wanted to see a democratic Afghanistan. Which is it going to be?
The Taliban only managed to gain so much power in its heyday after the soviets left because despite its cruelty, it actually provided some stability. Nato, on the other hand, is too weak militarily to provide security or stability (as it will never be as bloodthirsty as the Taliban are). This is not to say that the Afghan people don't wish that the political system we tried to install there worked; I would bet that the vast majority, if they were free to choose between Nato and the Taliban in a fantasy world where nobody would be killed for their choice, would choose Nato in a heartbeat. But if you have to choose between the guy who will paint your thumb purple and the guy who will shoot your daughter to death with a gun in her vagina, that changes things. It isn't hearts and minds to the Taliban; to them, its simply fear.
Ironically, you rail against palehorse and others who want to be able to hunt down the Taliban in Afghanistan and elsewhere (North Pakistan) in order to provide enough security for the Afghan people to be able to make a choice without fear of the Taliban--you argue against them when they try to argue in favor of conditions that would allow Nato to
publicly win hearts and minds. Hopefully, when Obama shifts troops into Afghanistan, the military balance will shift noticeably.
