Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama and Afghanistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Hornsby View Post
    I think that about all you can really hope for is that now that they've seen how life can be, they'll refuse to be enslaved by a theocracy again. You hope that they'll get their version of "Arab Spring" if it comes to that, and take control of their own destinies. All you have to do is look at Egypt to see what dangers exist, but I firmly believe that the seed has been planted for the Afghan people.

    I think that you can have a long term, multi-national nation building commitment, but establishing a full time, large scale military presence there is not going to be the answer.
    I think fresno's suggestion may have been working from a different premise than nation-building.
    It certainly feels that way. But I'm distrustful of that feeling and am curious about evidence.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TranaGreg View Post
      I think fresno's suggestion may have been working from a different premise than nation-building.
      IMO, it's highly unlikely that any nation would allow a massive foreign military presence on their soil for too long, this isn't 1946 and there's no Communist threat looming on the horizon. I think the main reason that we still have bases in Germany is that they're essentially a huge part of the German economy now...
      "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
      - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

      "Your shitty future continues to offend me."
      -Warren Ellis

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
        Bump to follow up on the Afghanistan points raised by nots and Feral Slasher in the other thread. I have consistently, through the entire Bush presidency and now the Obama presidency, generally agreed that the US had a legitimate basis, after 9/11, to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and keep them out, because they clearly gave Al Qaeda a safe harbor within which to establish and maintain significant command-and-control operations, plus recruiting and training facilities, to facilitate terror against the US and its allies. And I do think American security interests were served by the initial removal of the Taliban and scattering of Al Qaeda to places where they'd at the very least have to operate in the shadows with far more logisitical challenges. But it's less clear to me what, if anything, has been accomplished since then. If the Taliban forces were able to depose the decidedly unhelpful Karzai government, what would happen? If all we're really heading off at this point is a cosmetic defeat, then I think I'd agree that the sooner we bring our troops home the better. To get back to senorsheep's point above, what is it that we realistically hope to achieve by the end of 2014 that we haven't achieved already.
        I recall discussing this with you several years ago. Are you now any more confident that we can accomplish anything lasting ? How much money are you willing to "invest" in an uncertain future ? I really think the onus should be on those supporting the war to show what we are getting for our money. We are likely going to start cutting benefits to social programs, do you think continuing this war is a higher priority ? Should Americans be willing to work additional years before receiving SS or medicare so that we can continue trying to "fix" Afghanistan ?

        Regarding the training ground for Al Qaeda, how much space do you think they need to train ? And how valuable is it to have a supposedly friendly government in power in Afghanistan, when Al Qaeda flourishes in Pakistan and Yemen, who are our allies ? To paraphrase a quote I saw from an Afghan citizen, " I don't know why they are obsessed with Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is everywhere else"

        And I do appreciate you taking the time to lay out your thoughts and questions, thanks !
        ---------------------------------------------
        Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
        ---------------------------------------------
        The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
        George Orwell, 1984

        Comment


        • #19
          as long as we can operate in Afghanistan we can remote control bomb militants in Pakistan. because Pakistan has obviously proved incompetent of being able to control their whole country.

          Comment


          • #20
            the future is always changing, in the largest of ways from the smallest of things.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
              I recall discussing this with you several years ago. Are you now any more confident that we can accomplish anything lasting ? How much money are you willing to "invest" in an uncertain future ? I really think the onus should be on those supporting the war to show what we are getting for our money. We are likely going to start cutting benefits to social programs, do you think continuing this war is a higher priority ? Should Americans be willing to work additional years before receiving SS or medicare so that we can continue trying to "fix" Afghanistan ?

              Regarding the training ground for Al Qaeda, how much space do you think they need to train ? And how valuable is it to have a supposedly friendly government in power in Afghanistan, when Al Qaeda flourishes in Pakistan and Yemen, who are our allies ? To paraphrase a quote I saw from an Afghan citizen, " I don't know why they are obsessed with Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is everywhere else"

              And I do appreciate you taking the time to lay out your thoughts and questions, thanks !
              I do think that there is a huge difference for Al Qaeda, logistically, between the set up they had in Afghanistan with the Taliban and their current operations in Pakistan and Yemen. Yes, the Pakistani and Yemeni governments and segments of the local populaces have in many ways afforded them some safe hiding places, but they don't have the tricked-out command-and-control centers, training and recruiting facilities that they had in Afghanistan which I believe were pretty essential to their organization capacity to plan and execute an attack with the coordination and complexity of 9/11. Now if we basically decide to treat Afghanistan like we're treating Pakistan now, i.e., we'll pretend to be your friend and won't move for regime change but we'll reserve the right to act independently with drones, manned airstrikes, special forces missions, etc, to take out Al Qaeda operatives and/or operations whenever our intelligence suggests we've got reason to do so -- then maybe we could leave Afghanistan entirely, let whomever takes control of the government do so even if it's the Taliban, and dare them to welcome Al Qaeda back in to try to set up shop. Of course, that's just the question of US security interests, and it ignores whatever moral interest we may have in helping to protect the security and human rights of the Afghan people. But as I think Hornsby conceded above, it's not clear what more we the US gov't and military can reasonably be expected to do in that regard.

              Edit: I should also note that I don't believe the political debate about whether and how to cut entitlement programs in the US will be impacted at all by the amount of $$$ we spend or don't spend in Afghanistan, so I think the binary guns-or-butter choice you posed above is not a politically realistic one. The left will always push for reductions in defense spending and higher taxes on the rich, and the right will always push for reductions in social welfare programs and tax cuts to "grow the pie", regardless of how quickly we withdraw from Afghanistan.
              Last edited by B-Fly; 02-05-2013, 09:42 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Hornsby View Post
                IMO, it's highly unlikely that any nation would allow a massive foreign military presence on their soil for too long, this isn't 1946 and there's no Communist threat looming on the horizon. I think the main reason that we still have bases in Germany is that they're essentially a huge part of the German economy now...
                The infrastructure to maintain 200k troops would be a huge percentage of the afghan gdp
                "You know what's wrong with America? If I lovingly tongue a woman's nipple in a movie, it gets an "NC-17" rating, if I chop it off with a machete, it's an "R". That's what's wrong with America, man...."--Dennis Hopper

                "One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real." -- Klaus Kinski

                Comment


                • #23
                  Looking at this from a purely strategic point of view (not attempting to justify or advocate this stance in any way BTW), the USA needs to stay in Afghanistan, publicly cosy up to their new enemy Pakistan to make their position very difficult, and keep drone striking the shit out the Taliban / Al Qaeda are in Pakistan. The US now need to adopt a divide and conquer approach to their enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

                  It's becoming much clearer now that the narrative of the last 10 years is back to front. The idea is that we are in Afghanistan in order to protect the Homeland from further attack, or to cripple the enemy to prevent further attacks, in reality this is not the case. That was also the premise of the war in Iraq. The reality is that the 9/11 attack, as well as all the attacks leading up to 9/11, was more likely part of a wider attempt to lure the US and her allies into open conflict, which they knew would be viewed explicitly in the Muslim world as the West fighting Islam. It worked. The bigger plan, which has also worked, is the hardening of attitudes among moderate Muslim's towards the west, creating at the end of this conflict, a Islamic world much more open to the extremist Jihadist message.

                  The origins of Al Qaeda is the Afghan guerrilla war versus the Russian's. That is very much the comfort zone for the Al Qaeda hierarchy circa 1990's. The short term goal of Al Qaeda is to fight America, not to necessarily attack the Homeland. They attacked America in gradually more and more ambitious ways ways until they hit a big enough target that America had no choice but to react. This is what Al Qaeda wanted, they also probably now want the US to leave Afghanistan just as they eventually left Vietnam. 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.

                  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.

                  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.

                  I think the US needs to stay in Pakistan, and create a concrete target for the Jihadists and Taliban to fight against. They need to demonstrate explicitly that America and Pakistan are very very good friends ... the best of friends. That way every bomb that is dropped on Taliban controlled territory is also a Pakistani bomb. Any deals and alliances between the ISI, Taliban and Al Qaeda will only be known at the very highest levels. Regional Taliban commanders, mid (even high) level Al Qaeda operative will not know the full situation. So the more America chips away at the leadership, the greater the divisions among the rank and file. The goal should be to turn these three against each other and exacerbate the historic racial and sectarian tensions that exist in Pakistan.

                  Divide and conquer.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by johnnya24 View Post
                    It's becoming much clearer now that the narrative of the last 10 years is back to front. The idea is that we are in Afghanistan in order to protect the Homeland from further attack, or to cripple the enemy to prevent further attacks, in reality this is not the case. That was also the premise of the war in Iraq. The reality is that the 9/11 attack, as well as all the attacks leading up to 9/11, was more likely part of a wider attempt to lure the US and her allies into open conflict, which they knew would be viewed explicitly in the Muslim world as the West fighting Islam. It worked. The bigger plan, which has also worked, is the hardening of attitudes among moderate Muslim's towards the west, creating at the end of this conflict, a Islamic world much more open to the extremist Jihadist message.
                    Everything I've been reading suggests that the world's Muslims are becoming less and less open to the extremist Jihadist message, not more. And Al Qaeda's involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, in which they primarily engaged in the killing of fellow Muslims, significantly diminished Muslim sympathy for Al Qaeda's mission and message. Yes, there is resentment against the US and the West, too, but not translating into wider embrace of terrorism or Jihad. If anything, it's translated into wider embrace of self-determination - overthrow of autocratic regimes that may historically have survived because they were useful to and propped up by the US and the West.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
                      Edit: I should also note that I don't believe the political debate about whether and how to cut entitlement programs in the US will be impacted at all by the amount of $$$ we spend or don't spend in Afghanistan, so I think the binary guns-or-butter choice you posed above is not a politically realistic one. The left will always push for reductions in defense spending and higher taxes on the rich, and the right will always push for reductions in social welfare programs and tax cuts to "grow the pie", regardless of how quickly we withdraw from Afghanistan.
                      I think this rationalization is exactly one of the reasons we continue getting in stupid wars. No one thinks it really costs us anything.

                      So if we accept that the money for Afghanistan doesn't come from entitlement programs, where does it come from ? If I say it came from money for a second stimulus, I'm pretty sure you'll say it didn't come from that, there wasn't going to be a second stimulus. Whatever I mention you will say that money from the Afghanistan war didn't replace or take away from that.

                      So the easiest way is probably for you to explain to me where you think the money comes from ? The current cost of the Afghanistan war is supposedly around $600 Billion and climibing. Where did the money come from ? What other spending was reduced to pay for it ? Or do you believe it was free money ?
                      ---------------------------------------------
                      Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                      ---------------------------------------------
                      The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                      George Orwell, 1984

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
                        Everything I've been reading suggests that the world's Muslims are becoming less and less open to the extremist Jihadist message, not more. And Al Qaeda's involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, in which they primarily engaged in the killing of fellow Muslims, significantly diminished Muslim sympathy for Al Qaeda's mission and message. Yes, there is resentment against the US and the West, too, but not translating into wider embrace of terrorism or Jihad. If anything, it's translated into wider embrace of self-determination - overthrow of autocratic regimes that may historically have survived because they were useful to and propped up by the US and the West.
                        So if the world's Muslims are becoming less sympathetic to Al Qaeda and we have devastated that organization with our invasion of Afghanistan and our drone war --should we need to continue the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping, etc ? Should we need to continue spending huge amounts of money to maintain our safety or should we be able to reduce that ?
                        ---------------------------------------------
                        Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                        ---------------------------------------------
                        The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                        George Orwell, 1984

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
                          I think this rationalization is exactly one of the reasons we continue getting in stupid wars. No one thinks it really costs us anything.

                          So if we accept that the money for Afghanistan doesn't come from entitlement programs, where does it come from ? If I say it came from money for a second stimulus, I'm pretty sure you'll say it didn't come from that, there wasn't going to be a second stimulus. Whatever I mention you will say that money from the Afghanistan war didn't replace or take away from that.

                          So the easiest way is probably for you to explain to me where you think the money comes from ? The current cost of the Afghanistan war is supposedly around $600 Billion and climibing. Where did the money come from ? What other spending was reduced to pay for it ? Or do you believe it was free money ?
                          I believe it came from borrowing, since the debt has been growing throughout the period of these wars at a faster rate than the cost of the wars. Now that's not free money, but I think you of all people would acknowledge that it doesn't appear to have caused painful budget cuts anywhere, no?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
                            Everything I've been reading suggests that the world's Muslims are becoming less and less open to the extremist Jihadist message, not more. And Al Qaeda's involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, in which they primarily engaged in the killing of fellow Muslims, significantly diminished Muslim sympathy for Al Qaeda's mission and message. Yes, there is resentment against the US and the West, too, but not translating into wider embrace of terrorism or Jihad. If anything, it's translated into wider embrace of self-determination - overthrow of autocratic regimes that may historically have survived because they were useful to and propped up by the US and the West.
                            Not sure where you're reading that. Moderate Muslims never supported Jihadism. How can they be less open to something they would never have normally supported? Now post Iraq and Afghanistan, they all have a common enemy, and religious war (as this appears, a war against fellow Muslim brothers) is now something that is part of everyday life. These last 12 years have normalized and increased the divisions. This is what Al Qaeda wanted ... to create the conditions for their cause ... increase agitation.

                            They may all want self-determination, that's really besides the point. These societies are not equipped for Liberal Democracy, and we are not tailoring the kind of democracy we are imposing on these countries to suit the conditions. We are simply laying down some ABC legalistic Liberal Democracy by-the-books rules and holding free open elections as soon as possible.

                            If you look at Liberal Democracy like the surface of a table that is being propped up with 4 legs. These 4 pillars are the reason why liberal democracy works in the west. None of these conditions exist in these new-Muslim-democracies (in fact, better conditions existed in inter-war Germany).

                            1. The framework for political debate exists completely within the Liberal Democratic scale:

                            Fascism --> Far Right --> Centre right --> Centrist <-- Centre Left <-- Socialism <-- Communism

                            Communism/Socialism is a child of Liberal Democracy. It is based on the inversion of Hegel's Master-Slave relation, which is an idealized expression of 19th century laissez faire capitalism. Socialism is not the enemy of Liberal Democracy. In fact it is a necessary condition of Liberal Democracy and an integral part of the conversation that binds it together, and which gave us universal education, health care and social security. In other words a clear left and right, where the political debate and the conditions under which elections are held exist within this scale. The notion of left-wing and right-wing is practically non-existent in the Muslim world.

                            2. A stable market economy, that is functional at the micro and macro level, and where the conditions of poverty are either marginal or improving. Again, absent.

                            3. Historical and gradual evolution of the tenets of Liberal Democracy: primacy of private property and individual ownership, banning slavery, the idea of social freedom and equality (for the nouveau riche, not as we like to think, "the people"), evolution of the justice system in keeping with the central premise of equality under the law, expansion of voter franchise leading to Universal suffrage and equal rights in all things for men and women (on-going), and eventually same sex relationships, the youth revolution and the rise of post-war youth culture, the cultural/sexual revolution etc etc. All of these things have occurred in the west to create the condition for stable and functional Liberal Democracy. Practically none of these things have occurred in these new Muslim liberal democracies.

                            4. Absence of competing power structures, namely religion. It is no coincidence that Capitalism and Liberal Democracy were fostered in predominantly Protestant countries (England, Holland, Germany then the USA), and not Catholic counties. Protestantism is about the individuals relationship with God, and this individualism became expressed through the rise of the nouveau riche who came to dominate and drive the innovation and progress of early modernity. This could not have been fostered to the same extent in Catholic countries. Catholicism is a competing power structure whose primary goal is to suppress individualism and demand adherence to the religious law above all else. Islam makes Catholicism look like child's play in terms of control.

                            Post-war Germany had almost 2 of these conditions: Absence of religion (competing power structure) and a still evolving adherence to the Liberal Democratic scale. However because the economy was in the toilet, and there was no history of party political or ideological loyalty, this adherence tended towards a naive lurching towards the extremities: communism and fascism. I believe Inter-war Germany still has the largest democratically elected communist party in history, and it is fundamentally fear of this which led the centre into the hands of the Nazi's.

                            These new Muslim countries do not have any of these 4 pillars, and barely any of the sub-conditions within. There is no evolution of Liberal Democracy principles, there is a threatening power structure within that is completely incompatible with Liberal Democracy, they all have unstable economies that are rife with poverty and inequality, and because of the primacy of Islam, they have no conception of left-wing or right-wing, which is the foundation of the Liberal Democratic conversation.

                            If you build a table with no legs, you can't expect it to stand. These are all time bombs.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
                              So if the world's Muslims are becoming less sympathetic to Al Qaeda and we have devastated that organization with our invasion of Afghanistan and our drone war --should we need to continue the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping, etc ? Should we need to continue spending huge amounts of money to maintain our safety or should we be able to reduce that ?
                              I believe we should be able to cut spending significantly on defense and homeland security, yes. I also agree with you that there was an over-correction after 9/11 in terms of the balance between security and civil liberties and that it hasn't been rolled back yet. So I'm not really arguing with you on either of these points, though the devil may be in the details.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
                                I believe it came from borrowing, since the debt has been growing throughout the period of these wars at a faster rate than the cost of the wars. Now that's not free money, but I think you of all people would acknowledge that it doesn't appear to have caused painful budget cuts anywhere, no?
                                Aren't we just starting the budget cutting process ? I'd say this is still an open question.
                                ---------------------------------------------
                                Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                                ---------------------------------------------
                                The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                                George Orwell, 1984

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X