Thread: Afghanistan 2009 & 2010

I can take it you dont have any more to say on the subject then?

America was always good at losing the War but winning the Peace.
The only wars you've won in the last century have been by throwing your lot in with the winning side, and certainly making a tangible difference in the process.

You'll not win in Afghanistan either i'm afraid, i'm pretty convinced now.
It's a face saving excercise.

I guess Dung has a friend and protector. My post of this morning answering his twaddle from yesterday has disappeared.

It appears the mods have once again cleaned up all the personal attacks...

Originally Posted by Muadib

It appears the mods have once again cleaned up all the personal attacks...

It's so arbitrary. One man's attack is another man's description, IMO. Or should I say IMHO so as not to offend.

Originally Posted by Scottish Gary

I dont imagine the people of Afghanistan had much say on the matter.
The Taliban Government never struck me as the kind who would hold a referendum to dictate policy.

I am not an expert on Afghan history, so keep that in mind as you read my supposition on the Taliban and the Afghan people.

My supposition is that the Taliban is made up of mostly Afghanis. Destroying the Taliban is destroying Afghanis. An analogy: killing nazis is killing Germans; not all nazis were Germans, but most were; hopefully you get my line of thinking.

The Taliban contained members who were also members of Al Q'aeada. The U.S. determined that Al Q'aeada was a terrorist network, and that they were behind the attacks carried out on Sept. 11, 2001 in the U.S. In order to further protect themselves from attacks by Al Q'aeada, the U.S. decided to destroy the network. It was shown that the Taliban in Afghanistan were providing a base of operations for Al Q'aeada. A War was declared.

Has Al Q'aeada been totally destroyed in Afghanistan? no
Has the Taliban been totally destroyed in Afghanistan? no

Are they a much less threat to the U.S.? yes

my War strategy is to bomb them VS putting troops on the ground. They have no air defense.

Originally Posted by Sabang

You'll not win in Afghanistan either i'm afraid, i'm pretty convinced now.
It's a face saving excercise.

Many people are aware that the real war was over shortly after it started.

Thus the irony of this


The U.S. in an attempt to alter its future in dealing with the Middle East chose a course of action hugely unpopular. Democratize the political processes used by Iraq and Afghanistan then commence a media blitz upon them that this is what they want. Also, blitz the rest of the world that this is best for all. Is it really?

fuck no! The Afghan people do not agree culturally with democracy. The corruption recently exposed during the Karzi election is an example to look at. They are typically theocratic in a way. they give their religious leaders the power to decide on matters because they believe that all matters are religious. The church and the state are the same. Do all Afghanis adhere to this? No, there are many Afghanis that disagree with the mostly male dominated privealeged society that this idealogy supports, but these Afghanis are in the minority.

Wow, to grow up in Afghanistan and be faced with these times. the ones who make it through will hopefully write books, paint, and create great movies.

War sucks, but at times seems to be the only alternative.

Originally Posted by sabang

America was always good at losing the War but winning the Peace.
The only wars you've won in the last century have been by throwing your lot in with the winning side, and certainly making a tangible difference in the process.

You'll not win in Afghanistan either i'm afraid, i'm pretty convinced now.
It's a face saving excercise.

You wouldn't call Korea a "win"?

Although your point is well taken, I think, in terms of the "wars" we're discussing here, it might be wise to begin by defining both "war" and "win", because neither word, in the senses that they have been used traditionally, seems to fit these situations.

Bush's dramatic landing on the aircraft carrier did signal a "win" in the sense that one of the state actors in the war was defeated and out of action. Same thing holds for the Taliban as the "government" of the state of Afghanistan.

If "winning" has to mean the end of hostilities, then the Afghan "War" will end the day the last Afghani with a rifle or a rock, and a refusal to accept foreign intervention in his backyard, is killed, and not a moment before.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

You wouldn't call Korea a "win"?

No, I wouldn't. In terms of the original 'Mission' I think it's a bit of a face saver to even call it a draw- but I'm honestly not coming from an 'American baiting' scenario here- thats old hat, and frankly distasteful. So lets call it a draw.

But look at it honestly- what are the major victories of our shared capitalist system, and sponsorship of international trade? If you look at it militarily, when the US has unilaterally declared war, the results have been sub par to say the least. Yet the Berlin Wall came tumbling down (without a shot being fired), Vietnam, China and increasingly Russia are being integrated into the world trade system. Your/Our 'victories' have been economic.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by mao say dung

You wouldn't call Korea a "win"?

No, I wouldn't. In terms of the original 'Mission' I think it's a bit of a face saver to even call it a draw- but I'm honestly not coming from an 'American baiting' scenario here- thats old hat, and frankly distasteful. So lets call it a draw.

But look at it honestly- what are the major victories of our shared capitalist system, and sponsorship of international trade? If you look at it militarily, when the US has unilaterally declared war, the results have been sub par to say the least. Yet the Berlin Wall came tumbling down (without a shot being fired), Vietnam, China and increasingly Russia are being integrated into the world trade system. Your/Our 'victories' have been economic.

The "mission" of the UN/US forces in the Korean War was to return the peninsula to the status quo ante the invasion by the North; other than the fact that the "war" ain't over, can't see how that's much less than a resounding victory. MacArthur's dream of driving onto Beijing with lights flashing and nukes puffing mushrooms all around was not the "mission" per se.

If war is diplomacy blah blah means, and I think it is, then "economic" victory is all the US/capitalism has ever wanted, since the theory has up until recently been, thanks to Marx et Engels, that once the economy is in place all else will follow.

Originally Posted by sabang

Yet the Berlin Wall came tumbling down (without a shot being fired)

I disagree. How many died in Korea during the Korean War? .....Vietnam War? then during the Cold War?

Some Americans hold true to the belief that the great Republic of America has been under the threat of communism in the past and in the present. Such fear, founded or not, created a climate of action to stop the communist movement lest it get to big and destroy the Republic.

I'm of the view that the 'threat' posed by Communism was always overstated- and often deliberately so. All very well in Hindsight, you could argue.

At it's most insane, you had the Mccarthy era and 'reds under the bed'. To me, that was a national disgrace (but we've all had them). Less hysterically, there was 'Domino theory'. The results were dubious, imo- too often the US painted popular national liberation movements as the 'curse' of creeping Communism.They weren't, mostly.

At the end of the day, our system was superior than the centralised State bureaucracies that called themselves Communist. Thats why we won- with butter, not guns.

^I'm of the view that advertising almost always overstates; it's what it does. Democratic governments "advertise" to encourage and maintain the consent of their citizens; that's what democracy does.

I do think though that many older citizens of former Soviet Republics would take a different view of the "threat" posed by Communism, if not to Kansas, then to their children.

Your separating guns from butter may sweeten the taste of a sandwich, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of international politics.

People love to go on about how it was the Russians who "won" WWII because so many millions of them died. Their deaths would have been for nought if the US had not been funding the Red Army and everyone else fighting the good fight.

No butter, no guns.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Russians who "won" WWII because so many millions of them died.

If people say that, they're getting it arse about face. The reason that the Russians were so critical in defeating Nazism is because more German soldiers died in Russia than in all other countries, including Germany, combined.

^Killed by butter flung from Baboushka's bandana, no doubt.

much safer to bomb the problem and risk American hatred than put more soldiers at risk.

But, I think President Obama is going to send more troops into harms way. Probably 35,000.

I question the mission.
*democracy in Afghanistan...not realistic in the short term
*continued security of the gas pipeline...more probable

^^As I said above, if there is going to be discussion of Afghanistan as a "war", then it might be wise to begin by defining both "war" and "win", because neither word, in the senses that they have been used traditionally, seems to fit this situation.

In geo-political terms, Afghanistan hardly registers as a "country": it is a place where vital pipelines will run; it is a place where armed fighters from various surrounding countries can maintain camps etc.; it sits at the intersection of so many conflicting interests (China, Russia, Iran, Arabic Middle East, Pakistan) that it is a strategic location despite its primitive barrenness.

Considered on its own, as a country, it doesn't do much better. Tribal and ethnic division is the rule here and governments are hardly ever even remotely close to what that term is usually taken to mean.

So, what is a war in Afghanistan and how do you win it?

The goals here, and not just for the US, include a secured pipeline/transit corridor and a sufficiently well-policed territory that "armies" of whatever kind cannot use it as a base of operations.

Given these, it seems unlikely that a "win" would involve total cessation of hostilities, and does not require anything on the part of the attitudes of the local people other than a respect for the security measures required by those goals.

We are talking colonialism here, after all.

Originally Posted by DunceCap

continued security of the gas pipeline...more probable

I've mentioned that one before- basically, i think the Pipeline has become a Pipedream.
If we really, really want a pipeline, lets make friends with Iran. Much better route.


As far as the 'nation' of Afghanistan goes, I basically agree with Mao's points- which means, bottomline, whats the point? Much though I hate the Tali, the final straw for me was basically the fact that Karzai clown is no better, just a bit less wacko Muslim.

I think it's time to start withdrawing, not wasting more money and lives. Whats left to prove?

Originally Posted by larvidchr

in the first stage the enemy have to be crushed decisively, like they where in WWII, so Marshall/MacArthur plans can be implemented without crippling constant disruption and resistance, but world public opinion have no stomach for decisive crushing victory's any more, that in-itself is probably a good sign for humanity, but it makes it almost impossible to win a war in this day and age, so very careful thought should be given to whether any war is the right approach, because chances are that you end up with a public relations catastrophy, no matter how righteous your initial cause or how successful your soldiers are on the battlefield.

This and Norton's post above both true, IMO. The problem is that, even without the issue of public opinion (a valid concern when a democracy goes to war), a "decisive, crushing, victory" is impossible to achieve against an insurgancy, as noted by our own Generals.
As far as righteous causes are concerned, stealing oil and colonizing territory to secure your pilepline is not a rightous cause (at least not when somebody else does it).

I want to follow up on this apparent tax hike to fund Afghanistan. How much will it be?

Notice the "fool's errand" comment:

Democratic war tax proponent Obey calls expected troop surge a 'fool's errand'


By Jim Snyder - 11/29/09 01:19 PM ET
The chief architect of a bill to increase taxes to pay for the Afghanistan war said he didn't believe adding troops would yield much benefit.

"The problem is you can have the best policy in the world but if you don't have the tools to implement it it isn't worth a bean bag,"
Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), the House Appropriations Committee chairman, told CNN on Sunday.

.....But Obey said supporting a corrupt Afghan government by adding troops amounted to a "fool's errand."

Allegedly, *where* the money will come from:

Obey's bill would increase taxes by 1 percent on incomes over $150,000. Tax rates would increase further at higher income levels.

The financial cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan was a central theme on Sunday talk shows.

Earlier on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said a surtax should be part of the debate about how to pay for the war.

"We're going to have to have a serious talk about budget and about the $1 trillion deficit we are in now and will continue to be in," Lugar said.

But his colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told ABC's "This Week" that Congress should cut spending to pay for the additional troops.

Link & Entire: Democratic war tax proponent Obey calls expected troop surge a 'fool's errand' - TheHill.com

Unfortunately, there will be a shallow compromise, with the us and allied forces paying off or buying the localised war lords. And the war lords know this, i believe this sort of activity is already taking place.
However being a tribal and fighting nation the outcome will be the warlords will fight each other for the spoils to enhance their status and coffers, therefor i see no good outcome for this forray into ganistan.
WE will weaken al'queida but they have enough resources and money to keep low for a while and rebuild, then it would start all over again.
\the only way to win is complete obliteration which will not happen.

Originally Posted by meepho

the only way to win is complete obliteration which will not happen.

Or perhaps to remove Al Qaeda's motive for its war against the west by quiting their meddling in Middle East politics?

No way. The West is collectively far too stoopid to do any such thing.