What do we hope to accomplish in Afghanistan?

[Cleobulus]

Obama said he'd "finish the job" in Afghanistan, that the escalation will have some positive impact, frankly, I don't see how. The idea that "nation building" is something that is even possible, given our track record and the track record of our allies is frankly laughable. So we send more troops in to prop up a corrupt regime that isn't even legitimately elected, and doesn't even have control within its own borders doesn't help either.

Lets say we do escalate and keep troops in Afghanistan for the next 4-8 years, will we see a blossoming of Democracy all of the sudden? Will such a government even be stable? I believe the answer to both these questions is no.

The factors that lead to a birth in democracy and a respect for human rights is most successful in a country when it springs from within, not from without, from "foreign intervention" either perceived or real.

A realistic timetable for even establishing a stable government in Afghanistan should be measured in decades, at best, and by stable I do not mean a democratic regime, which simply isn't realistic at the moment. I think the most we can hope for is to prop up a nominally pro-US dictator or single-party state, one that will, with either US financing or US military backing, be able to maintain power through brutal means, to suppress dissidents and terrorists(our side will be called "freedom fighters" of course).

If this seems like a cynical outlook, well, its not like we don't already have precedent in our own history in handling and trying to control other nations internally. I don't see us breaking this cycle any time soon.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Here.....

These posters have said it better than I could.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=51327&mesg_id=51829

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=51327&mesg_id=51884

[lapfog_1]

5. Been saying that and more for weeks now.

And have yet to get an honest answer to two fundamental questions to both "sides" of the debate...

To the escalation supporters "What does winning look like and how do we know that we've won???"

To the escalation detractors "If we leave, what will we do if the Taliban topples the government in Pakistan, and if that happens, are you willing to take the risk that the Pakistan Taliban will NOT give a nuke warhead to an extremist group?"

So far, I've received only a few on point responses, one of which was "India will police Pakistan" and another was "Pakistan will never fall to the Taliban", but most were "why don't you enlist you warmonger you?" (note that I only posted a couple of questions and never stated my opinion on the issue because, so far, I don't have an answer, either good or mediocre.

[EFerrari]

11. I'll try to give it a shot.

First, the Afghan Taliban is not the Pakistani Taliban. They are two different groups.

Second, the Pakistani government has had to mobilize against the local group. They are not holding back. Over a million people have been displaced in the fighting.

Third, the only good that I can see coming out of a US presence in Afghanistan is to prod Pakistan to mind their internal affairs. Having said that, I think a US presence elicits more violence than it resolves. The Pakistani government has no intention of falling to these extremists and our random bombing of their civilians isn't helping get public opinion on the government's side there.

Fourth, RAWA and other groups in Afghanistan are against an escalation. I can't pretend to know better than they do what they need.

Fifth, I've already seen the United States try to prop up an unpopular government and pretend to train an army. It didn't work.

That's what comes to mind.

[lapfog_1]

17. OK, lets take these one at a time...

"First, the Afghan Taliban is not the Pakistani Taliban. They are two different groups".

True, but see my other reply to you in this thread. They have a lot in common, and the Afghan Taliban was a construct of the Pakistani ISI.

"Second, the Pakistani government has had to mobilize against the local group"

Yes, they have. I wonder if they would have if we weren't there. Remember when we weren't giving it our all in Afghanistan for these last 7 years. We would attack and they would slip across the border into the "tribal regions" of Pakistan. Why wouldn't the same thing happen if we weren't in Afghanistan and the Pakistani army attacks the Pakistani Taliban... would they not slip across the border into Afghanistan?

"Third, the only good that I can see coming out of a US presence in Afghanistan is to prod Pakistan to mind their internal affairs."

Pretty much what I've been saying. Our fight in Afghanistan is giving the more moderate secular forces (mostly middle class that hope to avoid a fight) some backbone.

"Fourth, RAWA and other groups in Afghanistan are against an escalation."

I wonder how RAWA will feel if we leave and the corrupt Karzai government falls (which it will) and the Taliban take over. I seem to remember that RAWA was persecuted under the former Taliban and repeatedly called for intervention by the forces of the west.

"Fifth, I've already seen the United States try to prop up an unpopular government and pretend to train an army. It didn't work."

Yes, if that was all that was happening. But the message that I've been reading and hearing is that we are bypassing the Kabul government and working directly with the tribal leaders in each valley. And they tell us that they love to have us there working on projects they want (and, lets face it, the money we bring in) but are afraid of the Taliban if we leave. So, if we want the tribal leaders cooperation (and they all aren't war/drug lords or corrupt officials), we gotta stay. It's not pretty but there it is. If we leave, they have no choice but to either join the Taliban or simply avoid the fight (which lets the Taliban win). Individually, they are not strong enough to stand up to the Taliban without either support from a strong central government (and we all know that's not going to happen) or the presence of a strong outside force.

If they could TRUST the Chinese (and we could trust them), I think that might be a solution. But I'm not sure that they would accept foreign occupation by the Chinese. However, the Chinese could "surge" 300,000 instead of 30,000, and that might be sufficient to intimidate the Taliban right out of existence. But that's a far fetched notion.

You have some good points, but I think the risk factor (of a Pakistani failure) is still a valid concern.

[EFerrari]

21. Okay, let's see how we do.

"First, the Afghan Taliban is not the Pakistani Taliban. They are two different groups".

True, but see my other reply to you in this thread. They have a lot in common, and the Afghan Taliban was a construct of the Pakistani ISI.

**But they are two separate groups whose command structure is not related **

"Second, the Pakistani government has had to mobilize against the local group"

Yes, they have. I wonder if they would have if we weren't there. Remember when we weren't giving it our all in Afghanistan for these last 7 years. We would attack and they would slip across the border into the "tribal regions" of Pakistan. Why wouldn't the same thing happen if we weren't in Afghanistan and the Pakistani army attacks the Pakistani Taliban... would they not slip across the border into Afghanistan?

** The thing is AQ debunked after Tora Bora. We need to keep AQ and the Taliban separate because they are two different problems.

The Afghani Taliban was routed, not defeated. Omar has been sitting in Quetta for years and no one seemed very concerned about him. Our government (BushCo) knew where AQ was setting up again, in Pakistan.

Whatever has been happening between the ISI and the Pakistani government, they are now flat out in this fight. I don't think it has much to do with us or our presence.


"Third, the only good that I can see coming out of a US presence in Afghanistan is to prod Pakistan to mind their internal affairs."

Pretty much what I've been saying. Our fight in Afghanistan is giving the more moderate secular forces (mostly middle class that hope to avoid a fight) some backbone.

"Fourth, RAWA and other groups in Afghanistan are against an escalation."

I wonder how RAWA will feel if we leave and the corrupt Karzai government falls (which it will) and the Taliban take over. I seem to remember that RAWA was persecuted under the former Taliban and repeatedly called for intervention by the forces of the west.

**RAWA's position is that the Northern Alliance and the Karzai mafia is little better than the Taliban when it comes to the treatment of women. Take that in for a minute. :(

"Fifth, I've already seen the United States try to prop up an unpopular government and pretend to train an army. It didn't work."

Yes, if that was all that was happening. But the message that I've been reading and hearing is that we are bypassing the Kabul government and working directly with the tribal leaders in each valley. And they tell us that they love to have us there working on projects they want (and, lets face it, the money we bring in) but are afraid of the Taliban if we leave. So, if we want the tribal leaders cooperation (and they all aren't war/drug lords or corrupt officials), we gotta stay. It's not pretty but there it is. If we leave, they have no choice but to either join the Taliban or simply avoid the fight (which lets the Taliban win). Individually, they are not strong enough to stand up to the Taliban without either support from a strong central government (and we all know that's not going to happen) or the presence of a strong outside force.

** "We gotta stay". The escalation is not going to address the real needs of the Afghan people. I couldn't agree more that they need support but sending troops in is not that help.

If they could TRUST the Chinese (and we could trust them), I think that might be a solution. But I'm not sure that they would accept foreign occupation by the Chinese. However, the Chinese could "surge" 300,000 instead of 30,000, and that might be sufficient to intimidate the Taliban right out of existence. But that's a far fetched notion.

You have some good points, but I think the risk factor (of a Pakistani failure) is still a valid concern.

** I don't think that 30K troops deployed to Afghanistan will secure nukes in Pakistan.

[lapfog_1]

23. "I don't think that 30K troops deployed to Afghanistan will secure nukes in Pakistan."

Neither do I, but the question is of the negative nature. If we DON'T put the troops into Afghanistan (accepting for the moment the political reality of not putting them into Pakistan directly), does it increase the possibility of a Taliban government in Pakistan? If the answer is yes, then we should be asking "why not 100,000 or 200,000 troops"?(which is what I ask of the pro-surge people)

I really don't have a good answer.

I agree with most of your points. But I see the other side as well. I don't think that there is any good choice here at all.

I was hoping for an "outside the box" bit of brilliance from Obama and Hillary and Biden and their team. So far, I haven't heard it.

I don't think leaving it as it was is the answer (possibly the worst choice).

I don't know if leaving now is better than sending more troops in. And I don't know if you decide to "surge", then how big a surge?

Some of the decision is based on the "success" of the surge in Iraq. But I'm wondering if that was really as successful as we've been led to believe? And, even if it was, is the situation in Afghanistan comparable to Iraq?

[EFerrari]

27. The Pakistanis have a battle on their hands

but they are engaged in that battle and have their own reasons to fight it.

Pakistan seems to me, at least, where the real problem is militarily. And it's not our fight.

I'm fading fast here, but what seems pretty clear is that the United States doesn't have a solution for the problems in other countries that we can pull out of our pocket. More, the United States usually only gets involved if there is some profit to be made. Our track record is great in profits and crap in peace.

Anyway, it was good thinking through with you, lap_fog1

[lapfog_1]

30. Good night to you.

It's nice to see that someone can debate points here (and on this, a highly emotional issue) without devolving into name calling and personal attacks (as so often happens).

And to have someone that has a command of facts and history.

You are swaying me into the "pull out now" camp.

When Obama took office (he ran on "fighting the right war" in the campaign, something many here seem to have forgotten), my fear was that Afghanistan had been left to fester so long that nothing could fix it (anti-American feelings from an occupation that was overly long, nor a clear defeat of either AQ or the Taliban, a horribly corrupt central government of our making). And I wondered if Obama would be wise enough to see that the things he argued for in 2002 and 2003 (when he was against the Iraq war but for the Afghanistan war) were too little too late now. And I fear that they are, and that he isn't seeing that this is true.

Sigh.

[EFerrari]

6. The poster in your first link doesn't even distinguish

between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban. The poster in your second link has apparently never heard of the abject failure that is Plan Colombia.

[lapfog_1]

12. The Afghan Taliban is/was purely a construct of the

Pakistani ISI, made up of remnants of the mujahadeen and others that our own CIA funded to fight the Soviets.

Elements of the Pakistani government wanted a puppet regime in Afghanistan that they could use to their own purposes.

While there are differences in the tribal make up of both the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban (which literally means "ones who study the Quoran"), they share a many ideals and philosophies.

[EFerrari]

13. That's right, exactly. But they don't share infrastucture. n/t

[lapfog_1]

20. True, but they DO share tribal allegiances and affiliation.

By and large. I know the Punjabi Pakistanis ( who are tribally much more closely aligned with Indian Punjabi's than any tribal group in Pakistan) would consider open revolt against the Pakistani central government if they perceive a Taliban takeover).

Pakistan is much more fragile than we might have thought. We in the west constantly make the mistake of putting our trust and our support into one "strongman" that keeps the forces that wish to tear apart their "nation" at bay and when that person fails, as they all do someday, we wonder why there is political unrest and resentment of the United States ( The Shah, Saddam, Sadat, Musharraf, Marcos, etc, etc). And it's not just the US that has been shortsighted, the Soviet empire and client states had much the same issue (Tito, Honecker, Ceauşescu).

In any event, while they are not the same, they do share the same ideals and goals. And if the Taliban came to power in nuclear Pakistan, I wouldn't like the odds that they might give a terrorist group a warhead (not the missile). And said terrorist group wouldn't try to put it in a truck in Manhattan, but they sure might put it aboard a cargo ship and park it 5 miles off the coast of New York, or Hong Kong, or Mumbai... it really doesn't matter which one. Success will be detonating one and hoping someone with a trigger finger retaliates against the Muslim world with a nuclear response.

[EFerrari]

22. The thing is, the only thing more fragile than the Pakistani central government

is ours.

It's been very clear for a very long time that Pakistan was only minimally stable.

What should realy concern us is our own government's ability to prevent a terror attack when they can't even respond to the weather.

[lapfog_1]

28. No, that a bit over the top.

Our government, despite the seeming appearance of discord, is far more stable than that of Pakistan.

And the "respond to weather" comment... well, that response (I assume you mean Katrina) was entirely INTENTIONAL.

Our government can be very effective when it wants to be. Which is why I discount the concept of a smuggled nuclear warhead stashed in a truck somewhere. We actually have very good radiation detection equipment and a nuclear response team. However, a cargo ship parked offshore... in a lead lined box... we wouldn't find it in time.

Our only long term answer to Pakistan / Afghanistan is to put the genie back in the bottle, i.e. not just nuclear non-proliferation, but actual disarmament. Which, I believe, was the the reason given by the Nobel committee when deciding on President Obama for the Peace Prize. His previous work on "loose nukes" and his announced intention to try to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

If Pakistan didn't have nukes, as much as I would feel badly that they mistreat women and that they really do need to be dragged into the 21st century instead of the 12th, I wouldn't want to waste one life or one dime of money on anything other than humanitarian aid to the region. I don't care how much oil or natural gas could get shipped in a pipeline across their lands.

[lapfog_1]

7. Edit - dupe.

[Cleobulus]

33. So basically the dictatorship/one party state scenario I laid out...

"Stability" at any cost, no matter how many civilians die in the process.

[noise]

2. The election was Obama's accountability moment

Thus he should be given unconditional support until his next accountability moment in 11/12. That is the way representative democracy should work.

:sarcasm:

[Goldstein1984]

3. Our democracy didn't evolve overnight

or even over the course of a decade. Democracy was a bad word when our republic was established. It took centuries of genocide, civil war, world wars, police actions, protests, et cetera to get where we are. And we've been losing democracy for the past eight years.

Afghanistan isn't even a country, except by decree. It's a patchwork of ethnic groups, cultures, varieties of Islam, and languages.

There isn't going to be any nation building that takes hold in any amount of time that the American people will tolerate.

I know the comparison is getting used a lot, but I see this developing into another Vietnam for us. It certainly was that for the USSR.

[kenny blankenship]

10. Nation building in Afghanistan? You may as well try nation building in Uranus.

[Goldstein1984]

14. They'll be cutting each other's throats...

A good friend of mine--a naval intelligence officer--returned from a one-year tour in Afghanistan. I asked him to give me his impression in a nutshell. He said, "They were cutting each others' throats for a thousand years before we got here, and they'll be cutting each others' throats a thousand years after we leave."

[devilgrrl]

4. An oil pipeline for the people that really run the country.

:popcorn:

[Goldstein1984]

19. Not just an oil pipeline

I work in the oil industry (But I'm a safety engineer, and basically a nice guy).

There is intense interest in Central Asia. There are huge gas reserves, and the area is a crossing point for just about every pipeline route possible through that region.

My personal belief is that all the furor over Iran's nuclear program is a straw man, and the real issue is access to it's petroleum reserves and the Strait of Hormuz by the most direct route. Nothing is what it's made out to be in that area.

Our soldiers are just pawns. They believe this is all about truth, justice and the American way. It's about the American way, all right--the American way of doing business.

[BeHereNow]

24. "National Interests..." so many in the region and none of them meant to benefit the US.

But it has such a calm, reassuring sound to it, doesn't it?
"National interests... national interests..."

Multinational corporate interests is more like it.

Corporations who recognize no borders, but have
perfected the art of lulling people into fighting for them
under the mantra of it's in our
"National interest, yes national interest..."

Sleep, sleep, beautiful poppies, sleep.

BHN

[Goldstein1984]

29. Wow! I was seeing flying monkeys for a minute.

Isn't "national interest" a great catch-all excuse for going to war and using tax dollars to build things that go boom!?

Never again be limited to mere defense!

Need a pipeline route?--national interest!

Nasty old FARC guerillas making Columbia unsafe for our business partners?--national interest!

And now, with President Obama, we have new and improved "vital national interest."

[BeHereNow]

32. "National interests" and "An Official Spokesman said..."

Anybody ever wonder just WHO these official spokesmen are?
They seem to be everywhere and yet have no names.

Perhaps THEY are the flying monkeys!

BHN

[cowcommander]

8. Job security for the military

He's definitely fulfilling his promise for creating more jobs there, alright.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

9. there's no goal. What does it mean to win? Its about ego I am guessing

We are over there causing hell because we need to throw our weight around
and scare other countries.

Set an example.

[jobycom]

15. I think there are different motives for different people.

I think Obama is surrounded by people who see different reasons for us to stay there. The military doesn't want to pull out without some form of identifiable victory. Some people focus on the businesses begun there, others on the rights of women if the Taliban take over, some on terrorism, some on nuclear weapons, some on the fact that we've spent so much there that we can't just let it return to chaos, some believe that if we can stay there we can bring peace to the region by enforcing our will...

In short, a lot of people are afraid of leaving for a lot of different reasons, and they think if they just stay a little longer maybe those fears won't come true. And Obama has so many people telling him what all can go wrong that he's afraid of being the one to make it all happen. So we do nothing except the same thing we've been doing all along, with new words and more troops.

The bad thing is, most of those fears are more likely if we stay than if we go. We are fueling the resurgent Taliban by our occupation, and that is strengthening the Taliban in Pakistan, as well. The longer we stay without accomplishing anything, the more the Robin Hood mentality takes over and the Taliban becomes the hero against the evil American Sheriff of Nottingham. Usama is King Richard, of course, who may or may not be about to return to bring justice to the region. We are fueling the unrest into Pakistan and destabilizing it further. And no matter how long we stay--whether we leave now or ten years from now, there will still be a power struggle when we leave, so we aren't stabilizing or accomplishing anything. We are just delaying the necessary internal battle.

If we want to destroy the Taliban, we should leave. Then they start fighting amongst themselves, and the people turn against them. But no one wants to be the one who pulled out. They are all too afraid to. This will be the central fact of the 2012 election, too, I suspect.

Just my thoughts.

[blogslut]

16. stability - eom

[flvegan]

18. To expend countless lives, and to spend countless dollars we don't have. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The politicians hope to accomplish re-election by showing they're "tough".

The rest is just PR.

[BeHereNow]

26. Welcome to DU! Great post! Critical thinkers are ALWAYS welcome here.

Hope to hear more from you!

BHN

[tabatha]

31. My pollyanish hope.

Afghanistan is a mess.
I am hoping the military will provide cover for a "Three Cups of Tea" initiative by "It takes a Village" Clinton.