Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we propping up such garbage?

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And guess what, some of the strongest parts of the Afghan resistance is now compromised of old line mujaheddin fighters who have now allied with the Taliban. As they teach what they learned from the CIA on how to run an effective guerrilla war to new generations. The old line mujahaddin types may not have much use for Taliban ideology, but they share the agenda of expelling the foreign invaders. All we have done is replaced the Russians and at least the Russians built better infrastructure is now the Afghan sentiment.

Its always extremely naive to assume that one can help create an entity without that entity having soon having its own agenda of power and survival in even the not very long term of a year or so.

All I can say to you TheSkinsFans, you are almost as naive as GWB&co.

Tell that to Gen. Petraeus and the Sons of the Awakening in Iraq.

Oh, and we didn't "create" the lashkars -- they're comprised of locals and they created themselves... amateur.

 

[Lemon law]

It was a different situation in Iraq, the Sunni insurgencies were already a long standing organization, and the awakening councils predated Patraeus. And by in large we did arm them but we did not encourage them to go Al-Quida hunting, as they had already realized all they had to do was deny Al-Quida the previous sanctuary they had previously given them.

Once that happened and Al-Quida was screwed, because the far stronger Shia insurgencies in Iraq
were and always had been the blood enemy of the the Sunni's of Al-Quida. And when the Sunni's of Iraq whose agenda was survival realized the Al-Quida agenda was stirring up ethnic tensions that fell largely on the very Sunnis who sheltered them, it was a fairly easy sell for the Sunni's to tell Al-Quida you will find no shelter with us. As a result, the overall violence level dropped like a stone with the Sunnis being one of the chief beneficiaries because the Shia's quit butchering the
Sunni civilians as reprisals for Al-Quida attacks on their turf.

Its a very different situation in Afghanistan because we are arming these Lashkars to the teeth and as a result the overall violence level climbs to new heights. And drug money will inevitable become part of their power agenda. Besides, you are somewhat too late on that Lashkar idea, it was in vogue maybe a year or two ago until Nato realized it was backfiring for the very reasons I have outlined.

 

[LunarRay]

LemonLaw,
Do you think the Afghani (who is not Taliban, etc.) would defend an effort to exploit their mineral assets? Would they fight against the latter day Mujahideen and Taliban and the agenda to secure a better earthly life?
I think that Bush felt this was how Iraq would respond and I think Iraq is to some extent.
JoS says continued war will have no positive outcome in Afghanistan.
Some in DC think we can create Eden in Afghanistan if we keep pushing but I simply don't see the signs that ought to be seen by now. What I do see is that to terminate one bad guy you risk terminating a village. I am so reminded of the VC in Vietnam and their tactics vis a vis the simple villager who could care less about freedom.
I'd like someone in Congress to show why we need to be there and why we can be effective using each strategy we might employ. I've listened to the hearings, briefings and what not but it is like 'we will win but how is a secret'..

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It was a different situation in Iraq, the Sunni insurgencies were already a long standing organization, and the awakening councils predated Patraeus. And by in large we did arm them but we did not encourage them to go Al-Quida hunting, as they had already realized all they had to do was deny Al-Quida the previous sanctuary they had previously given them.

Once that happened and Al-Quida was screwed, because the far stronger Shia insurgencies in Iraq
were and always had been the blood enemy of the the Sunni's of Al-Quida. And when the Sunni's of Iraq whose agenda was survival realized the Al-Quida agenda was stirring up ethnic tensions that fell largely on the very Sunnis who sheltered them, it was a fairly easy sell for the Sunni's to tell Al-Quida you will find no shelter with us. As a result, the overall violence level dropped like a stone with the Sunnis being one of the chief beneficiaries because the Shia's quit butchering the
Sunni civilians as reprisals for Al-Quida attacks on their turf.

Its a very different situation in Afghanistan because we are arming these Lashkars to the teeth and as a result the overall violence level climbs to new heights. And drug money will inevitable become part of their power agenda. Besides, you are somewhat too late on that Lashkar idea, it was in vogue maybe a year or two ago until Nato realized it was backfiring for the very reasons I have outlined.

Why do you even fucking comment and say things that are not even near the truth?

There is not ONE thing in this post that is even close to resembling the truth.

Did you take my PM and decide that i know nothing and decide to make up your own truth and present it as real?

You are fucked in the head, please shut the fuck UP!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
LemonLaw,
Do you think the Afghani (who is not Taliban, etc.) would defend an effort to exploit their mineral assets? Would they fight against the latter day Mujahideen and Taliban and the agenda to secure a better earthly life?
I think that Bush felt this was how Iraq would respond and I think Iraq is to some extent.
JoS says continued war will have no positive outcome in Afghanistan.
Some in DC think we can create Eden in Afghanistan if we keep pushing but I simply don't see the signs that ought to be seen by now. What I do see is that to terminate one bad guy you risk terminating a village. I am so reminded of the VC in Vietnam and their tactics vis a vis the simple villager who could care less about freedom.
I'd like someone in Congress to show why we need to be there and why we can be effective using each strategy we might employ. I've listened to the hearings, briefings and what not but it is like 'we will win but how is a secret'..

Don't bother with this freak accident that is Lemon Law, he has no knowledge, he doesn't trust knowledge from someone who was THERE, he makes up his own truths.

He's a fucking twat and should be dismissed.

In VN, you had your opening, in Afghanistan we had ours, but it was decided by the UK and the US that we should not even fucking attempt to win the war... So left on the fucking ground was a couple of thousand soldiers and now we have TWO unwinnable wars.

We could never create a paradise, but we could have given the population peace and kept the Taliban on the run so bad that they would eventually die from their own endavours or from us.

We had the chance, the US and the UK threw that chance away.

Right now, no, just pull the men out, there isn't a fight to be won anymore, just a bunch of troops defending themselves against the Taliban who live everywhere around them.

 

[Lemon law]

No, JOS, you may be there, but it was always clear you could not see the forest for the trees. Pardon me if I observe that at one time you had an inordinate faith in air power and the assertion that you never screwed up in targeting the bad guys and never created collateral damage. It was always someone else, and now you 180 degree change your position, and say air power is a rather blunt axe where you can't help but create so much collateral damage than ends up fatally counterproductive. And then you are ready to throw in the towel rather than ever adapt to a smarter strategy when you finally have the blinding revelation that air power alone will not win.

Could it be I was right all along, and you just refuse to admit it? Need I remind you of all your other predictions in saying in only a few months Nato will turn it around and make progress. All of those predictions came and went, and it sounds like you are a only fair weather soldier and a Pollyanna, just unwilling to see the realities while you made yourself a legend in your own mind.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No, JOS, you may be there, blah blah blah.

Or, it could be that the forces over there are doing the best they can with what they're given. Doing the best they can within the parameters they're allowed to operate within. Doing the best given the local mentalities. Doing the best they can given the extremes the opposing forces get to employ to influence/"influence" the local populations.

Do you seriously understand the effects of all the forces at play on all three sides of the conflict there?

I ask, because from your continued posts in response to people that have an actual ground eye view, you seem to have some profound insights that they do not. How is that possible?

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

Chucky 2 somewhat sarcastically hits the nail on the head in sayng, "you seem to have some profound insights that they do not. "

Short answer, I have no special super abilities and anyone can do it, all they have to do is look at it from the point of view on the man in the street, and some world history helps also. Afghanistan and Iraq are not be the first or last military occupations, and when historians describe the relative success or failure of a large number of military occupations, its usually in terms of the man on the street perspective.

And sadly too many in our Military only look as the military options when there is that tool and a pile more in the Nato tool kit. And flat out, we can not win in Afghanistan until we take on the very corruption Nato has allowed to flourish. It does not mean there is something wrong with Nato people like JOS, who are very good at what they do, the problem is that we have to use the other tools in the toolbox also. And when we use the right combination of tools, we have a chance to succeed after only one tool alone has proved to be in adequate. In the end its simply the difference between stupid and stubborn vs being smart, flexible, and adaptive.

Because after eight years, its gotta be clear the military option alone is not working. Or as JOS now better puts it, the military option can only work if we in Nato are willing to kill 80% of the Afghan population which would add up to a Holocaust of some 25 million people.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
LemonLaw,
Do you think the Afghani (who is not Taliban, etc.) would defend an effort to exploit their mineral assets? Would they fight against the latter day Mujahideen and Taliban and the agenda to secure a better earthly life?
I think that Bush felt this was how Iraq would respond and I think Iraq is to some extent.
JoS says continued war will have no positive outcome in Afghanistan.
Some in DC think we can create Eden in Afghanistan if we keep pushing but I simply don't see the signs that ought to be seen by now. What I do see is that to terminate one bad guy you risk terminating a village. I am so reminded of the VC in Vietnam and their tactics vis a vis the simple villager who could care less about freedom.
I'd like someone in Congress to show why we need to be there and why we can be effective using each strategy we might employ. I've listened to the hearings, briefings and what not but it is like 'we will win but how is a secret'..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LunarRay asks a very good question, and even without the mineral wealth of Afghanistan, an Iranian natural gas pipe line through Afghanistan and Pakistan and on to tap the energy markets of India could easily bring the wealth, jobs, and modernity that would defeat the Taliban in a war of ideals rather than bullets, and all without a dime of Nato monetary investments.

But helping Afghanistan tap its resources could do the same although Nato member investments would be greater and have a longer term payoff.

But heaven forbid that we actually make Iran into an ally, Dick Cheney would probably have a coronary and have to give up his lifelong dream of bringing back the Shah of Iran.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Chucky 2 somewhat sarcastically hits the nail on the head in sayng, "you seem to have some profound insights that they do not. "

Short answer, I have no special super abilities and anyone can do it, all they have to do is look at it from the point of view on the man in the street, and some world history helps also. Afghanistan and Iraq are not be the first or last military occupations, and when historians describe the relative success or failure of a large number of military occupations, its usually in terms of the man on the street perspective.

And sadly too many in our Military only look as the military options when there is that tool and a pile more in the Nato tool kit. And flat out, we can not win in Afghanistan until we take on the very corruption Nato has allowed to flourish. It does not mean there is something wrong with Nato people like JOS, who are very good at what they do, the problem is that we have to use the other tools in the toolbox also. And when we use the right combination of tools, we have a chance to succeed after only one tool alone has proved to be in adequate. In the end its simply the difference between stupid and stubborn vs being smart, flexible, and adaptive.

Because after eight years, its gotta be clear the military option alone is not working. Or as JOS now better puts it, the military option can only work if we in Nato are willing to kill 80% of the Afghan population which would add up to a Holocaust of some 25 million people.

That's profound observance there, profound. Pray tell:

Just how are we going to know ahead of time which people - with the important quality they must have political stature already, and not be some schmoe no one knows or will support - will be honest and good? And that a sufficient number of people will support? And that will have enough influence and stature that they can talk to multiple factions within the country/region with enough stature to be taken seriously?

So, given all that: Which person, specifically, was "The West" supposed to install in Afghanistan, instead of Karzai?

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

All the Chucky2 nay saying seem to distill down to his last question of, "So, given all that: Which person, specifically, was "The West" supposed to install in Afghanistan, instead of Karzai?"

And the answer to that may distill down to GWB&co nativity, and simple assumption that democracy was the magic Afghan and Iraqi panacea, and therefore, the sooner Nato could create an Afghan democracy, the better. As a result, the entire Afghan government can only be described as corrupt
and ineffective, and the best government drug money can buy.

In what could be called the better success stories in military occupations, namely the post war occupations of Germany and Japan, there was no giant hurry to turn it all over to local government before that local government had a proven track record of being corruption free.

I should note I have already made this point on this and other Afghan threads, its all in that blah blah, blah, you love to dis when I say it.

And you would rather listen to the blah blah blah of JOS&similar who only have a proven track record of failure as JOS now throws in the towel.

If you can't admit I am right, at least have a clear view of reality, and no, pretending very hard in denial never works.

 

[LunarRay]

Lemon, You have an informed point of view on this 'middle east' ummm locale. We all, I guess, have a point of view and that view is informed by what we each let into our deliberative process. (No Duh... I know)

I listened to Chris Hill last night speak to Iraqi issues and heard very guarded semi optimism... Way too many 'if this' and 'if that' to give me the warm and fuzzies regarding what occurs when we yank out the troops. It took quite a long time for the government to actually form and now the head of government goes around his ministers to effect action. I don't think Iraq is ready but yet they do want us to not get out but let them run their own business.. We have no choice, as I see it.

In Afghanistan, I can see no way to military our way to the end. It MUST be a concerted effort using all aspects of available tools and the invention of some others that might do the job. Unlike Iraqi, ( 3rd largest reserves in the world, Hill said.) Afghanistan has modest 'legal' exploitable assets but way enough to put everyone to work. I feel that Afghanistan could be a big market for many things but the Taliban is the major block there not corruption unless staying alive by being the friend of the Taliban is corruption. The economic corruption is real but it too can be dealt with and so long as the US and the willing is doing the corrupting it may be the way to start. It costs less to corrupt than supply an Army. Over time the corruption will become a voter issue there. I think.. or hope..

I think the must do in both Iraq and Afghanistan is find a way to provide real and workable incentives the good guys to turn their mind away from the terrorist folks and pursue the good stuff. I've no idea what those incentives are. Many of the folks there could give a dam who runs what is what I understand and the ones who do care have all sorts of ideological issues we in the US and the Willing don't seem to grasp well.

IF that is not doable then we need getting the heck out of there and let what will be be. After we insure our oil needs...

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
All the Chucky2 nay saying seem to distill down to his last question of, "So, given all that: Which person, specifically, was "The West" supposed to install in Afghanistan, instead of Karzai?"

And the answer to that may distill down to GWB&co nativity, and simple assumption that democracy was the magic Afghan and Iraqi panacea, and therefore, the sooner Nato could create an Afghan democracy, the better. As a result, the entire Afghan government can only be described as corrupt
and ineffective, and the best government drug money can buy.

In what could be called the better success stories in military occupations, namely the post war occupations of Germany and Japan, there was no giant hurry to turn it all over to local government before that local government had a proven track record of being corruption free.

I should note I have already made this point on this and other Afghan threads, its all in that blah blah, blah, you love to dis when I say it.

And you would rather listen to the blah blah blah of JOS&similar who only have a proven track record of failure as JOS now throws in the towel.

If you can't admit I am right, at least have a clear view of reality, and no, pretending very hard in denial never works.

So I asked for who the West should have instilled as the political Leadership of Afghanistan after the Taliban was kicked out, and instead of showing some profound insight, you cop out and tell me we should have done a complete military occupation for some duration - unspecified of course - so as to.......what?

What was the point of the military occupation again? Given that we're always looked at unfavorably when we Occupy a country...would not getting that countries own people leading it be a priority? After an x years long military occupation, what exactly was going to happen, a Good and Honest Leadership sprouts from the rocky soil? During that whole time, politicians of stature, such as Karzai, wait - unused - for.....what exactly? The Hope and Change candidate to arise in Afghanistan? All while we're demonized as "Occupiers"?

It's rediculously easy to say 'Oh just do a military occupation until totally trustworthy people (people that materialize out of nowhere apperantly) are ready to Lead a country'....it's another entirely to find people of that power base and stature.

Is Karzai corrupt? I'm sure he is. Are there others that could have been put in his place? I'm sure there are. Would they have been as corrupt and/or as corruptable as Karzai? Yep, I'm sure of that too.

Are you advocating, after this last round of elections, that the Western military replace the current Afghani Leadership? And if so, what then? Hold elections again? Wait for a few x's and then what?

Chuck

 

[LunarRay]

I found Senator Levin's 36 minute News Conference informative (C-Span).

I wonder, however, about his notion of transforming low and mid level Taliban into 'Sons of Afghanistan'... interesting that he said it was done in Iraq with their terroristic minded Iraqi.

 

[Lemon law]

This time in terms of waiting to be clueless, chucky2 buys in to the whole Donald Dumsfeld stupidity hook line and sinker wiith " So I asked for who the West should have instilled as the political Leadership of Afghanistan after the Taliban was kicked out, and instead of showing some profound insight, you cop out and tell me we should have done a complete military occupation for some duration - unspecified of course - so as to.......what?"

And the answer is oh clueless one, Nato had to deliver a better governance system than the Taliban did, when they were the reformers and ended the regime of corrupt war lord thugs from 1994 to 2001.

And the first damn thing Nato did was to ally with the ubber corrupt Northern alliance, the very corrupt entity that made the the rise of the brutal Taliban a better alternative for the Afghan people. And the the second damn mistake Nato made was in relying on the Northern alliance to capture Ossama Bin Laden at Tora Bora, but that was never their agenda, as they instead raced back to set up corruption and thuggery at their same old stands the Taliban kicked them out of.

And here Nato is after eight damn years, trying to tell the Afghan people the democracy is this wondrous gift. But when democracy for the Afghan people equals the best thuggery and corruption drug money can buy, how can we wonder that the Taliban has an easy sell in saying the solution lies in throwing the Western devils out.

Put yourself in the position of the average Afghan man or woman on the street, tell me again why they should have any faith in Nato when they are deep in bed with bad governance and corruption?

When and if you are prepared to join me and realize that winning in Afghanistan involves offering a better alternative than the Taliban, and doing the hard things required to make it happen, then and only then can Nato win in Afghanistan. Until then, the only entity Nato fools is itself and the Western general public.

As for the Afghan general public, they are really really screwed. They may want to have some faith in Nato, but they are waiting, waiting, and waiting to ever see it happen.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

snip.

So, what you're saying is:

1.) You can name no credible Afghani Leadership that Western forces could have used immediately after kicking the Taliban out.

And...

2.) You can name no time period Western forces were supposed to wait, while being seen as "The Occupiers", until some Good and Honest Afghani Leadership sprouted from someplace...which of course you can't name either.

So basically, given that....

...you have no F'ing clue, you're just Whining and Bitching on a BDS trip. Gotcha.

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

To some extent Chucky2 is correct and Afghanistan is too big a nut to crack, at least at current and likely future troops levels. Do the math, one boot on the ground troop required per 50 in population to run a military occupation, which for Afghanistan works out to 620,000 troops. And in the midst of all the 100,000 or so Nato troops we have, we can't even get the two rascals who matter, namely Ossama Bin Laden and Zawahiri who may not even still be there. Meanwhile corrupt public officials and the Taliban have free run over 100% of Afghanistan and can also transit into the Tribal areas of Pakistan or any of the Stans to the North.

But ask yourself, what more real damage can the Taliban now do than they have not already done? But winning the occupation is and always has been a winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and Nato fails for three reasons. (1) Not enough troops to protect those who side with us. (2) The corruption of the Afghan government is the bigger problem. (3) Failing the 620,000 troops that will never happen, its simply impossible to save the whole country. (4) Which then implies widening the war is the stupidest thing imaginable.

But if we don't have enough troops to save the whole country, it still means we have enough troops to save part of the country, and we can implement such a strategy now. Pick an area to start, stamp out corruption, do the development and roads, make life perceptively better for the Afghan people, protect those that side with Nato, and then move outward. In trying to do too much with not enough, Nato has done nothing in eight years. And as a result, Nato has nothing to show for eight years of effort. Make life better for some of the Afghan people and the rest will want their turn to come also. Get rid of the opium cultivation and the corrupt will pack up and leave. And with luck, the corrupt will kill each other off in the turf wars that follow.