Obama and Afghanistan

[johnnya24]

To paraphrase that long post:

If you look at Liberal Democracy like the surface of a table that is being propped up with 4 legs. These 4 pillars are a table with no legs, [that] you can't expect it to stand. These are all time bombs.

Hope that makes sense.

[The Feral Slasher]

To paraphrase that long post:


Hope that makes sense.

Wouldn't 4 pillars be like legs with no table-- not a table with no legs ?

[johnnya24]

Wouldn't 4 pillars be like legs with no table-- not a table with no legs ?

I started of with big aspirations for that analogy. I initially thought of going with a chair, with the pièce de résistance being the chair collapsing when someone applies a little bit of pressure (I'll figure that bit out at the end I thought). But chairs have arms and a back ... what will that represent? Then I thought of a stool ... but a stool could mean a number of things. So I went with table, then immediately betrayed my table by upgrading the legs to pillars. The 4 legs of Liberal democracy just didn't carry any gravitas. I was thinking of some additional correlation to the 5 pillars of Islam, or one of our many financial and legislative edifices that attempt to express power and control through association with Greek and Roman architecture. Neither were fulfilled. By this stage the analogy was caput. It required revision or deletion. Neither occurred. Didn't stop me revisiting it at the end by describing a table with no legs, which is just a plank of wood, and then made a final mockery of the whole thing by having the non-existent table explode.

So to conclude, Liberal Democracy without the 4 pillars of a table is just a plank of wood that explodes.

[The Feral Slasher]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/al-qaeda-stronghold-grows-mali-article-1.1230181

Al-Qaeda controls a territory larger than France in new Mali stronghold


"Al-Qaida never owned Afghanistan," said former United Nations diplomat Robert Fowler, a Canadian kidnapped and held for 130 days by al-Qaida's local chapter, whose fighters now control the main cities in the north. "They do own northern Mali."

Well we can't stand for that, can we ?

[Fresno Bob]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1230181

Al-Qaeda controls a territory larger than France in new Mali stronghold


"Al-Qaida never owned Afghanistan," said former United Nations diplomat Robert Fowler, a Canadian kidnapped and held for 130 days by al-Qaida's local chapter, whose fighters now control the main cities in the north. "They do own northern Mali."

Well we can't stand for that, can we ?

dude, the freaking sun owns Northern Mali...it's basically the heart of the Sahara

[johnnya24]

dude, the freaking sun owns Northern Mali...it's basically the heart of the Sahara

What about the dung beetles? They get no respect.

[The Feral Slasher]

1) Osama, the ISI and the Taliban leadership had been patiently waiting for the US to leave. Public pressure in the US always leans in this direction. They know that.

2) The difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam, is that the conditions that caused the origins of the Afghanistan conflict have now been exacerbated 10 fold. So in all likelihood, the end of the Afghan conflict is just the start of something much more dangerous and threatening than the state of play in 2001. Especially looking at how hardline Islamism is taking root in the new (totally unprepared and unready) Liberal Democracies in North Africa. It's amazing how little we understand about Liberal Democracy, and how and why it works in the west. We naively traipse around the world imposing this system on countries who have no history or conception of left-wing or right-wing politics. It's a nonsense ... the void from the absence of left and right will be filled by extremist Jihadism. Fascism and Communism are the extreme expressions of Liberal Democracy ... without left or right, Jihadism (or Islamofascism) will fill the void in all these Muslim countries. The Quiet American nailed this naivety in the 1950's, and we still keep repeating the mistakes. Western style open liberal democracy has no business in nations like Afghanistan ... it will only create the conditions for extremism to foster (like Germany in the inter-war years ... open elections + extreme poverty/hardship = extremism). We are so naive.

3) When the US leaves, the Taliban will eventually return to Afghanistan and, with the help of Pakistan and $20b worth of US military equipment, get rid of the US puppet regime in Kabul.

.

1) Who is going to win the waiting game. It's not hard to figure is it ?

2) We are extremely naive to think we can go in and force our will on a contry like Afghanistan. And even if we do accomplish our goals, will they even work out for us ? Look at Iran with the Shah, Sadam Hussein in Iraq and even our one time support of the rebels in Afghanistan. We have no clue how things will play out a few years from now but that won't stop us from jumping in.

3) wouldn't be surprising at all. It will probably be stable as long as we want to keep pouring massive amounts of money to keep it that way

[The Feral Slasher]

dude, the freaking sun owns Northern Mali...it's basically the heart of the Sahara

yeah, that's part of what the article said. Except for the compounds hidden in their cave complexes. I'm sure it's impossible to plan an attack from there,huh ?

[johnnya24]

1) Who is going to win the waiting game. It's not hard to figure is it ?

That ship may have sailed after Abbatobad. I find it hard to see the US being able to pull out any time soon. I would be very worried if they did to be honest. A new war basically started in 2011, and noone is talking about this one. The short term security situation for America and American assets abroad in particular could get severe. Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan are still intact enough to re-emerge quickly. Strategically speaking, again not making a personal or ethical argument here, the US need to keep troops out there to provide a target for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to keep them from organizing again.

2) We are extremely naive to think we can go in and force our will on a contry like Afghanistan. And even if we do accomplish our goals, will they even work out for us ? Look at Iran with the Shah, Sadam Hussein in Iraq and even our one time support of the rebels in Afghanistan. We have no clue how things will play out a few years from now but that won't stop us from jumping in.

Not sure we had any choice in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda were going to keep attacking until we responded. Afghanistan was by necessity, not choice. Iraq was different ball game. What's naive (and extraordinarily dangerous) is thinking we can impose out form of government on these countries. That is pure ideology.

3) wouldn't be surprising at all. It will probably be stable as long as we want to keep pouring massive amounts of money to keep it that way

I haven't seen many concrete figures on USAID into Pakistan since Abbatobad. Some "economic" aid must still be going in, because Clinton tried to use it as leverage when the Pakistani's sentenced the Osama Vaccination Doctor (portrayed in Zero Dark Thirty) to 33 years for treason ... for helping the American's.

[The Feral Slasher]

That ship may have sailed after Abbatobad. I find it hard to see the US being able to pull out any time soon. I would be very worried if they did to be honest. A new war basically started in 2011, and noone is talking about this one. The short term security situation for America and American assets abroad in particular could get severe. Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan are still intact enough to re-emerge quickly. Strategically speaking, again not making a personal or ethical argument here, the US need to keep troops out there to provide a target for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to keep them from organizing again.

Not sure we had any choice in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda were going to keep attacking until we responded. Afghanistan was by necessity, not choice. Iraq was different ball game. What's naive (and extraordinarily dangerous) is thinking we can impose out form of government on these countries. That is pure ideology.
.

Not sure sending Americans oversees to get killed is preferable. Unless we have strong reason to believe that Al Qaeda was going to be much more successful than they had been in the past. Part of that depends on if you view 9/11 as a one off event that we should have stopped with reasonable precautions or something that we could expect to see frequently. The whole War on Terror is a big Charlie Foxtrot at this point, that's for sure.

[johnnya24]

Not sure sending Americans oversees to get killed is preferable. Unless we have strong reason to believe that Al Qaeda was going to be much more successful than they had been in the past. Part of that depends on if you view 9/11 as a one off event that we should have stopped with reasonable precautions or something that we could expect to see frequently. The whole War on Terror is a big Charlie Foxtrot at this point, that's for sure.

I would not class Afghanistan with other wars were American lives have indeed been spent needlessly (Vietnam, Iraq II). The 9/11 attack was one in a sequence. It certainly wasn't a one-off. America had to respond to that. I don't believe they had any real choice. It would be preferable to get the troops out of course, but the risks of letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda re-organize (with a newly empowered and rearmed Pakistan backing them) is far too great a risk IMO. Also if they leave, they will find it very difficult to get back in again should things escalate. Pakistan was the main supply route into Afghanistan. After Abbatobad, that route has been completely closed off. The cost of leaving could be too high if there is a chance the puppet regime in Kabul is overthrown.

Pakistan betrayed the American's and supported and backed the Taliban and Al Qaeda before during and after 9/11. This has only become concrete since mid-2011. I don't think the American's are going anywhere any time soon.

The War of Terror is a load of crap of course. It was a soundbite to paralyze the population, and make them compliant to the Bush administrations illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq and the bullshit Orwellian legislation like the Homeland Security Act.

[Fresno Bob]

yeah, that's part of what the article said. Except for the compounds hidden in their cave complexes. I'm sure it's impossible to plan an attack from there,huh ?

It is perfect drone terrain

[nullnor]

setting up an office in Qatar for the Taliban isn't going to do squat. they know how easily Afghanistan will buckle after we leave so they won't negotiate in good faith. and obviously the Afghan government and police aren't anywhere near to being ready themselves. which means we aren't leaving. not unless you want to make the same mistake that we made in Iraq and having to go back in again. it's the you break it you take it rule. but the best we can do with Afghanistan now is to try to just hold on to what we have. and if there's a country that you can force an unwanted military presence for more that 10 years than Afghanistan is such a country. strategically it just doesn't make sense to leave.

it's not how long your in a foreign country, it's how many combatants you have to kill to stay. we could have stayed in Vietnam. but we would have had to kill more than 4 million Vietnamese to do it. so if Obama wants to leave, that would be a pretty big mistake. because not nearly as many Afghan ppl have died to cause them to want to throw us out yet.

pop quiz: we leave and the Taliban rolls over Afghanistan. what do you do?

[B-Fly]

setting up an office in Qatar for the Taliban isn't going to do squat.

They'll make a ton renting that place out for the World Cup, though. Who's bunking with Mullah Omar?

[Hornsby]

So it begins...

Obama to announce withdrawal of 34,000 troops from Afghanistan, sources say
Los Angeles Times | February 12, 2013 | 7:30 AM

Sources said President Obama plans to announce in tonight's State of the Union address that 34,000 U.S. troops will be home from Afghanistan by next February, various news outlets reported today.

The address is also expected to call for compromise as the president invites Republicans to join him in a search for common ground -- and subtly dares them to not to.

The annual address -- the first of his second term -- comes as Obama faces a limited opportunity to pass legacy-making agenda items through a divided Congress while his political capital is still at its post-reelection high.