|
United States42661 Posts
On July 28 2010 23:06 TanGeng wrote:
Nation building requires its own justfication and is a separate mission. Causus belli does not cover nation building even if you destroyed the entire country. A defeated nation is free to dismember itself into 40 nations if the situation calls for it. War is not about "caring". In fact, the Afghan people would complain about too much "caring" by the US Army.
Afghanistan had a perfectly fine government before the US arrived. The Taliban controlled as much territory in Afghanistan if not more than the US-backed one in Kabul does right now. As for the original Causus Belli, you can target AQ or you can target the original Taliban leadership in a war. That's it.
The original Taliban (pashtun tribal) leadership is gone and out of power. The new Pashtun Tribal leadership doesn't want anything to with the AQ and AQ is numbering near a hundred and in Pakistan. The original situation was that AQ was a guest of Taliban, and now the new Taliban disavows all connection. Clearly the situation hasn't reverted back.
Currently, US is trying to sew Afghanistan back into one piece when it was never one piece and the people don't want to be one piece. That is mission creep and it requires its own justification. Whatever is happening in Afghanistan isn't retribution against AQ or the original Taliban leadership.
The whole point of the war is to establish some kind of central control in the area that can moderate extremism. Invasion was a means to the end of nation building. Nation building was always the tool to stop Afghanistan being a base for terrorist attacks against the west. Bombing a few madrassas wasn't going to change anything.
|
On July 31 2010 00:36 Dave[9] wrote:
Wow, I just heard on the radio that people who were undercovor and many people have already been killed as a result of these leaks. Yeah, let's kill people for the sake of letting the entire world know about secret intelligence papers, score one for all you wikileak lovers, you are SO fucking cool. In the article, "Assange, a former teen hacker who launched the site in 2007, denies that WikiLeaks has put troops in danger.". That just makes me sick from what news I've been hearing now. I hope the guy who leaked all of this to that idiot Assange gets charged for treason.
What radio rush limbaugh?
|
On July 31 2010 00:36 Dave[9] wrote:
Wow, I just heard on the radio that people who were undercovor and many people have already been killed as a result of these leaks. Yeah, let's kill people for the sake of letting the entire world know about secret intelligence papers, score one for all you wikileak lovers, you are SO fucking cool. In the article, "Assange, a former teen hacker who launched the site in 2007, denies that WikiLeaks has put troops in danger.". That just makes me sick from what news I've been hearing now. I hope the guy who leaked all of this to that idiot Assange gets charged for treason.
Assange isn't an American, good luck with that.
Also, source?
|
On July 31 2010 03:49 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2010 00:36 Dave[9] wrote:
Wow, I just heard on the radio that people who were undercovor and many people have already been killed as a result of these leaks. Yeah, let's kill people for the sake of letting the entire world know about secret intelligence papers, score one for all you wikileak lovers, you are SO fucking cool. In the article, "Assange, a former teen hacker who launched the site in 2007, denies that WikiLeaks has put troops in danger.". That just makes me sick from what news I've been hearing now. I hope the guy who leaked all of this to that idiot Assange gets charged for treason. Assange isn't an American, good luck with that. Also, source?
No, the person who supplied his with all those papers was in the military doing intelligence. The only reason he got caught by the FBI was because the guy in the military went to some hacker in sacramento and that hacker was the one who went to the FBI with it.
My source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/30/128868663/wikileaks-founder-may-have-blood-on-his-hands-joint-chiefs-chairman-says
I know it's NPR, and that's kind of awful, but I've read the article and the real thing I saw was the quote from the general, not any of the biasness from their liberal media.
And http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html?from=rss
It's pretty scary imo, they;re telling me if I wanted to serve my country and have to go undercovor that my covor could be exposed by some untrustworthy military personell? Fuck that.
And for the record, the radio show i was listening to is a morning talk show called Armstrong and Getty, probably the two most normal guys talking about multiple things ranging from politics to sports. They're absolutely hilarious, and extremely fair and logical in their talks. So please, don't insult me by saying I listen to Limbaugh, Savage, or Hannity.
|
On July 30 2010 07:32 TanGeng wrote:
L's American exceptionalism or relative improvement would be arguable if all Afghans preferred the US over the Taliban, but that is patently false. The main criteria for victory in the COIN strategy (COunter INsurgency) as it applies to Afghanistan can be stated as:
"Convince the various Pashtun tribes to recognize the legitimacy of the US backed government in Kabul to such a degree that active and passive support provided to the Taliban resistance drops meaningfully."
By that statement alone, a lot of the claims of American legitimacy, well-intentions, and preferableness over the Taliban in Afghanistan's Pashtun south is void. It also reveals a state of civil war in which the US is currently picking sides in backing the corrupt Karzai administration - supposedly representing Tajiks, Uzbeks, Almaks tribes of the north.
The Taliban are terrible, and the US is effectively empowering them by disenfranchising the Pashtuns to the degree that most Pashtuns see the Taliban as the best vehicle to restoring Pashtun supremancy over Afghanistan or at least prevent the Northerners from meddling in Pashtun areas. In this respect the Taliban has better popular support among their primary constituents (Kandahar) than the Karzai regime has over all of Afghanistan, and on the matter of human rights, Karzai is only marginally better than the Taliban.
Even when the Taliban fights with civilians as shields and commit suicide bombings, they are more legitimate in the eyes of the Pashtuns than Karzai of the north. Americans - who should be minding their own damn business - can't even compare. At this point, if US wants a peaceful resolution, the Taliban will be reintegrated into the Afghani government. If the US is really resolved to have Karzai dominate and destroy the Taliban, it can only be genocide.
Left with a choice between legitimizing the big bad mortal enemy, Taliban, or committing genocide. That's how stupid the fighting in Afghanistan war is.
If I was arguing for American exceptionalism, you'd be right.
However, I'm arguing for the opposite; that any nation which is repeatedly and brutally attacked should have the right to deal with the source of the threat. Generally, yes, you'd prefer diplomatic solutions over military ones. In the current instance, however, diplomatic measures made the issue gravely worse. Moreover the most logical solution to the issue: division of the country along the Northern Coalition's extent of control, would be egregiously difficult to get public support for.
But why's that? Well because we get selective reporting of issues. The post above yours, for instance, cries that a million civilians have died, where close to 7 times that amount would likely have died in last decade's drought cycle because the Taliban had far more pressing matters than building proper irrigation channels to agricultural land. Like irrigating poppy cultures to make opium, for instance. Not only would the same agricultural failure have taken place, but it would have been flanked with an aggressive administration which monopolized foreign aid to enrich itself.
Its no wonder that the majority of large NGOs are now administrated out of Kabul; the other areas are just too volatile to effectively bring support. The rule of law is somewhat important when you want to do things like organize relief efforts and not get all of your stuff strongarmed off of you during the night.
Whether or not Afghanistan is going to be a magically amazing place after the occupation or not isn't really the issue; the place has been pretty horrendous for over 40 years. The question is whether or not the state will be so terrible that it actively exports violence or not.
Additionally, there's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance going on in the majority of anti-afghanistan posters. There's a complete lack of focus on the actions of the Taliban and AQ to the point where people discuss the reasons and rationales for going to war without even mentioning either party, instead being content to focus on Osama alone. Clearly there's something wrong with that.
Even then, the war needs to be separated into two periods; The initial decision to go to war, and then the multilateral coalition afterwards. There's this impression that the US is fighting a war alone in Afghanistan which simply isn't true; The current effort in afghanistan is anything but an example in American exceptionalism. Its an example of relative global solidarity.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 31 2010 05:08 L wrote:
However, I'm arguing for the opposite; that any nation which is repeatedly and brutally attacked should have the right to deal with the source of the threat.
Source of the threat was AQ and by extension Mullah Omar and surrounding lieutenants of his Taliban administration. The Taliban administration was responsible for many atrocities. Considering that it was a civil war along ethnic lines, there were crimes akin to genocide in some areas. Despite the horrors of the civil war, US does not have the right to settle the civil war for the people of Afghanistan. US has the right to eliminate Mullah Omar's organization and eliminate them again if they reorganize with similar missions (harboring terrorist organizations targeting US homeland in the case of Taliban and organizing terrorist activities against the US homeland in the case of AQ).
Nation building for Afghanistan is preventive engagement by activey policing another country. It's similar to the buffer zone argument from Russia or sphere of influence rational by Imperial Japan. It's an excuse for occupying and conquering other nations and is expansionist and imperialistic no matter how you talk about the potential threats against your "interests." American exceptionalism is thinking that such imperialistic activity will be benign for the people of Afghanistan and should be viewed as benign by the rest of the world.
On July 31 2010 05:08 L wrote:
Its no wonder that the majority of large NGOs are now administrated out of Kabul; the other areas are just too volatile to effectively bring support. The rule of law is somewhat important when you want to do things like organize relief efforts and not get all of your stuff strongarmed off of you during the night.
This phenomenon is direct result of the corrupt government that the US is supporting and throwing money around in Kabul. In the one single place the US has effective oversight, it's fine. In the rest of the country, there is a free-for-all for all the money is throwing around. Having so much money flow out from Kabul subverts the rule of law in the rest of the country.
On July 31 2010 05:08 L wrote:
Whether or not Afghanistan is going to be a magically amazing place after the occupation or not isn't really the issue; the place has been pretty horrendous for over 40 years. The question is whether or not the state will be so terrible that it actively exports violence or not.
If this is the only criteria, US could have just glassed the entire country.
The criteria US should be looking for is whether or not the political bodies of Afghanistan can independently prevent terrorists from operating within its geographical boundaries. The first priority should have been to mediate the civil war or get out. But by importing lots and lots of weaponry and taking the side of the Northern Alliance, US has entwined herself into the civil war. Then by importing billions and billions in cash, the US has promoted corruption and degraded the rule of law.
The best move might have been to divide the country into two major political bodies, but the Americans would have risked further splintering since tribal organizations are stronger than most of the national bonds and the major impetus for becoming allies, members joining the Northern Alliance to oppose the Pashtuns in civil war and vice versa, would evaporate.
|
It's an excuse for occupying and conquering other nations and is expansionist and imperialistic no matter how you talk about the potential threats against your "interests." American exceptionalism is thinking that such imperialistic activity will be benign for the people of Afghanistan and should be viewed as benign by the rest of the world. Afghanistan was not conquered, and its pretty reasonably foreseeable that leaving Afghanistan immediately after the initial invasion wouldn't work for the reasons outlined at the top of this page.
If the US was attempting to make Afghanistan into a protectorate, you'd be correct, but there's a multilateral international taskforce in Afghanistan.
If this is the only criteria, US could have just glassed the entire country. No one said its the only criteria, but it sure as hell is the most important for the international community.
Like you said; it isn't anyone's business to interfere with intranational issues, but only up until the point where they stay intranational. Once a country's affairs become so malignant that they threaten neighbors and the international community at large, there's an impetus towards change directed by those affected, not those who are the authors of the problem.
Your proposed solution is cute, but frankly I think we'd have far more cries against the effort in that region if there was a unilaterally proposed national division.
|
Also:
Afghanistan had a perfectly fine government before the US arrived.
Well, clearly it didn't.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 31 2010 08:41 L wrote:
If the US was attempting to make Afghanistan into a protectorate, you'd be correct, but there's a multilateral international taskforce in Afghanistan.
How is becoming US's client state significantly different from being a protectorate?
Multilateral taskforce sounds nice. What percent of the troops and funding is provided by the US?
On July 31 2010 08:41 L wrote:
Like you said; it isn't anyone's business to interfere with intranational issues, but only up until the point where they stay intranational.
Ok, let's talk about the Taliban now. What are their international ambitions, now? And what of their Pashtuns power base?
On July 31 2010 08:42 L wrote: Well, clearly it didn't.
I know you love quibbling, but the Taliban government handled the primary function of a government, adjudicating justice, better than the US-backed Karzai administration. Of course there was a civil war going on so perfectly fine is relative. Not being recognized by the international community as was being discussed doesn't take away from the fact that its court system was working.
|
One thing virtually everyone in this thread has disregarded is that...there's more to it than just the "US". The "US" isn't some mystical entity with these goals and motives, it's comprised of people, some elected, some appointed. Foreign policy goals and desires change drastically from person to person and between administrations. To say that the US wants to turn Afghanistan into a protectorate is idiotic. You should say X administration wants Y, and Z administration disagrees and wants another random letter. If we say the US wants X, it may true at that time, but in the next election, things could be considerably different.
So don't ignore the impact that different individuals have and try to broaden your debates to include the realm of individuality and personality on shaping policy ^^
|
Sanya12364 Posts
There has been general continuity of policy in Afghanistan. The US foreign policy ship has a lot of momentum and is difficult to sway. In this case, US means the behemoth that is US foreign policy with respect to Afghanistan and the middle east. It doesn't change that much.
The COIN strategy was borrowed from Iraq and applied to Afghanistan after Obama took office but took nearly a year to fully start. Firing McCrystal will delay it some more. Major policies like drone kills, security check points, air power use, foreign aid, and anti-drug policy have not changed year over year. For organizations as large as the NATO ISAF, it might take two and a half years before major changes in personnel and overall strategy have true effect on the ground.
|
I was referring to the larger shifts in American policy, such as pre and post-Kissinger-esque changes
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 31 2010 12:59 Elegy wrote:
I was referring to the larger shifts in American policy, such as pre and post-Kissinger-esque changes
Shifts in diplomatic strategy is possible.
Debate about shifting militaristic and covert intelligence strategy is preempted by shouts of national security. Case in point: Obama STFU on a full pull out of Iraq, rendition, Habeus Corpus, warrantless wiretaps, torturing, and Guantanamo after hearing it from generals and the intelligence officers.
|
How is becoming US's client state significantly different from being a protectorate?
Multilateral taskforce sounds nice. What percent of the troops and funding is provided by the US? How is it different? Go look at actual protectorates, its not even remotely similar.
Ok, let's talk about the Taliban now. What are their international ambitions, now? And what of their Pashtuns power base? Taliban: Restablish control of the country, potentially with the aid of internationaly terrorist organizations then resume the lucrative trade of drugging people on opium.
Pashtun: Restablish control over their country to benefit marginally from the trickled down drug money. Also: Not starving would be nice.
I mean, that's the 3 line summary version.
I know you love quibbling, but the Taliban government handled the primary function of a government, adjudicating justice, better than the US-backed Karzai administration. Sadly, no it didn't. Very few countries in the world actually have proper impartial adjudication set up. Even the states has huge issues at the state level because of their elected judges. Afghanistan ranked nowhere near a decent level when it came to effective adjudication.
As far as the effectiveness of the government in other areas, you might be under that impression because Afghanistan was far less scrutinized prior to 1998. Additionally, some of the grossly negligent actions the Taliban took only bore fruit after the drought hit.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 31 2010 13:21 L wrote:Show nested quote +How is becoming US's client state significantly different from being a protectorate?
Multilateral taskforce sounds nice. What percent of the troops and funding is provided by the US? How is it different? Go look at actual protectorates, its not even remotely similar.
Yeah, being a client state of the US is worse because US backs a non-legitimate military dictatorship, doesn't promise national defense, feeds corruption through foreign aid, and provides weaponry to aid repression.
On July 31 2010 13:21 L wrote:
Taliban: Restablish control of the country, potentially with the aid of internationaly terrorist organizations then resume the lucrative trade of drugging people on opium.
Pashtun: Restablish control over their country to benefit marginally from the trickled down drug money USAID money. Also: Not starving would be nice.
FIFY. It's much easier just to take a handout than having to do the work of growing a cash crop.
The Taliban inspirations are largely domestic and align with the Pashtun inspirations. The international terrorist ambitions are currently defunct and they haven't proven any capabilities. "Taliban" is also a name given by ignorant outsiders to a new kind of Pashtun leadership. The new leadership has shed nearly all of the terrorist connections associated with the Mullah Omar version. New Taliban =/= Taliban.
The only serious international issue is the drugs. However, opium will always be a big cash crop in that area. US might first figure out how to get rid of Colombian drug lords or come to terms with failure in the drug war.
On July 31 2010 13:21 L wrote:
Very few countries in the world actually have proper impartial adjudication set up.
You won't get an argument from me on this. Good governance will be relative and standards depend on culture.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 31 2010 13:21 L wrote:
Additionally, some of the grossly negligent actions the Taliban took only bore fruit after the drought hit.
What is the point of this statement?
The technology and infrastructure of Afghanistan precluded coordinated drought counter-measures on a national level, so drought counter-measures in Afghanistan should have been prepared on a local tribal level. That failed and it would have failed regardless of the central government.
I guess some arrogant technocrat snob might puff himself up by fancying himself able to predict the coming drought and then oppressing the various tribes into preparing for a drought for their own good.
|
Yeah, being a client state of the US is worse because US backs a non-legitimate military dictatorship, doesn't promise national defense, feeds corruption through foreign aid, and provides weaponry to aid repression. Worse than what? The Taliban totally needed help with the corruption and legitimacy issues by going out and getting international terrorists to help them strongarm the country into being a drug manufacturing plant, right?
I see where you're coming from
The new leadership has shed nearly all of the terrorist connections associated with the Mullah Omar version. New Taliban =/= Taliban. You realize there are approximately 95,000 declared hostiles on the ground in Afghanistan, approximately the same amount as the number of western troops, right? The US presence in Afghanistan is actually dwarfed by their opposition and only with the aid of the Afghan army which they've trained do their numbers balloon into a roughly 4:1 force.
Sorry, but 100,000 people actively working in Islamic militias against the UN force does not indicate that the terrorist connection has been shed, otherwise they'd have no beef. Well, unless someone is misinforming them intentionally, which gives you pretty much the same end result.
Pakistan's been pumping cash, intel and technology into these militias for a number of reasons; when the dust settles, they want the pashtuns, who have had historically strong ties to Pakistan, sitting on top. They also, as you've said, like the fact that an ongoing war is
FIFY. It's much easier just to take a handout than having to do the work of growing a cash crop. So, how much experience with NGOs do you have, exactly, to claim that their aid is a handout? Do you know how and where the majority of US aid funds go in Afghanistan?
What is the point of this statement?
The technology and infrastructure of Afghanistan precluded coordinated drought counter-measures on a national level, so drought counter-measures in Afghanistan should have been prepared on a local tribal level. That failed and it would have failed regardless of the central government.
I guess some arrogant technocrat snob might puff himself up by fancying himself able to predict the coming drought and then oppressing the various tribes into preparing for a drought for their own good. Isn't really hard to see that the combination of irrigation canals built 40 years ago that lose more than half the water they channel and a climate that regularly goes into drought might be dangerous. The alternative to what you're proposing is that the tribes essentially fight each other tooth and nail over the water, or they just die off quietly when their crops and cattle die. Death in the name of the philosophy of freedom.
Nice.
Well, I suppose you could just buy food with the drug money, but its not like that ended up happening even during the period wherein the Taliban was in power. Why would they bother, they have plenty of people they can press into service. And all that without mentioning that according to you every NGO which predicted and acted against the drought starting nearly a decade ago are arrogant technocrat snobs. Its quite silly, really, the way you take your fear of government to such extremes as to accept millions of preventable deaths, while simultaneous deriding government for not being legitimate or stable enough to prevent far smaller issues.
Anyways, that's my last post on the subject because a certain Teletubby has a thing for banning me at around this point in the discussion.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 31 2010 16:23 L wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah, being a client state of the US is worse because US backs a non-legitimate military dictatorship, doesn't promise national defense, feeds corruption through foreign aid, and provides weaponry to aid repression. Worse than what? The Taliban totally needed help with the corruption and legitimacy issues by going out and getting international terrorists to help them strongarm the country into being a drug manufacturing plant, right?
It's worse than being a full-blown US protectorate.
Is it really a choice between actively propping up a shitty corrupt Karzai regime and supporting brutal Taliban regime that US already managed to destroy? Seriously, that's your two choices? You might as well commit suicide already.
On July 31 2010 16:23 L wrote:
Sorry, but 100,000 people actively working in Islamic militias against the UN force does not
indicate that the terrorist connection has been shed, otherwise they'd have no beef.
Islamic =/= Terrorist
Hell, Karzai's administration is ISLAMIC, too.
no beef? really? wtf are you on?
Pashtun have an issue with the corrupt government. Maybe they want to setup their own corrupt government but it doesn't make the US back administration any less corrupt.
So, how much experience with NGOs do you have, exactly, to claim that their aid is a handout? Do you know how and where the majority of US aid funds go in Afghanistan?
NGOs spend a lot of money guarding stuff. Pretty much if they have the connections they can have a job sitting or standing around escorting deliveries, making sure it doesn't get stolen. Maybe, they can steal it anyways.
The other option is to get a job as a contractor on any of the projects set up in the area. It's easier and pays better than farming - cash crop or not.
The alternative to what you're proposing is that the tribes essentially fight each other tooth and nail over the water, or they just die off quietly when their crops and cattle die. Death in the name of the philosophy of freedom.
Sure and surrounding tribes will learn a good lesson from their folly. They'll see the poor example and know that cooperation makes more sense. It's not that hard. Water is a valuable commodity. Put a price on it and tribes and entrepreneurs would be glad to provide it.
And all that without mentioning that according to you every NGO which predicted and acted against the drought starting nearly a decade ago are arrogant technocrat snobs.
No..... NGOs actually have the technology, capital,and money and they don't work for the central government and they work in localized area with individual farmers and tribes. NGOs are in a good position to get it done. The central government doesn't have a role.
It remains to be seen if all irrigation projects are a good idea. One of the reasons some fell into disrepair could be that farmers didn't see enough gain out of maintaining them, but it's more likely that it was just interrupted by years of civil war. However, if the irrigation system only manages to shift the water shortage around or hastens the extinction of key water reservoirs, then it'll just be incompetence. Anyways, I trust they were competent. I hope they were competent.
|
UPDATE
In the wake of strong U.S. government statements condemning WikiLeaks’ recent publishing of 77,000 Afghan War documents, the secret-spilling site has posted a mysterious encrypted file labeled “insurance.”
The huge file, posted on the Afghan War page at the WikiLeaks site, is 1.4 GB and is encrypted with AES256. The file’s size dwarfs the size of all the other files on the page combined. The file has also been posted on a torrent download site as well.
Source
What could this be?? insurance in case something happens to him?~~
|
accountability ugh so hard to swallow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
