The Cellar - Afghanistan

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Afghanistan (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19231)

It doesn't matter where the war is, what the war is about, or who is in power when it happens. The other side will do nothing but stand there and throw stones. American politics knows no other way to function. It is simply not possible for us to function any other way. Shit, at this point, if the Democrats stood up and said "You know, maybe universal health care isn't such a good idea after all", the Republicans would immediately stand up and shout how the Dems didn't care about people.

One side takes a position, the other side shoots it down. The topic is irrelevant.

Quote:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Just in Time for the Campaign

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

Link

I found this an interesting take on the address. Not that I agree with it as I didn't get that feeling from it, but as I think more on it.... hmm.

The timeline does seem awfully convenient.

McChrystal promised if he got troops he'd achieve x goals, in y timeline.
Obama said OK, here's your troops, now do what you promised.
From that point, whether McCrystal succeeds or fails, the focus on fighting militants will change, and the plan is to make Pakistan put up or shut up.
We want Bin Lauden and his 2nd in command. We want to cripple Al-Qaeda. But I don't think the Taliban is a threat to us, except when we're fucking around on their turf. They may be a threat to Pakistan, which would make them an indirect threat to us, but that's a big leap from where they are now.

As Obama was pondering his decision, I was also trying to think what the heck to do there.

"Victory" as I see it is when all the foreign troops have gone home AND a couple of other conditions are met.

The only really important thing we want from Afghanistan is that they not allow terrorist organisations to use it as a base. It would also be good if they could cut down heroin production. As a preference, I do want that Afghan civilians have the basic set of human rights respected, but I'm not willing to bleed indefinitely to secure that. Democracy would be nice but it would take generational change and we just aren't interested in that kind of investment, and there are better things to use those resources on.

The best I could think of was to let Karzai run the show as he likes, pull out, and make sure they know we aren't returning. We should do this slowly and with notice so the Kabul government (for want of a better word) can prepare to take full responsibility. After that it is up to them.

Basically, we shout "Hey, Karzai! Catch!" and throw him the ball. I think this is the only thing that has much chance of achieving victory as I set it.

I also expect that before we even leave Karzai will be showing (more) signs of corruption, brutality, political repression etc. While I expect to dislike this, I am not willing to invade or keep occupying Afghanistan to prevent it.

...but, as Bruce points out ... right next door to Pakistan. Hmmm.

I read in the paper, theres no danger of the taliban taking control of Kabul, at the moment. I couldn't help but think, to the average Afghani, the effect would be the same, as it would to me if the Republicans took control of Seattle. Interesting, but so what.
The Central government has never ruled the country, and I doubt if they ever can... well at least not for another hundred years, and that's if they work real hard at it.

[thinking along] Which means that we can't reasonably rely on the central government to prevent terrorist organisations from basing themselves in the country. Hmmm.

which means a forever commitment to occasional intervention... I wonder if Pakistan's border regions are any different.

Much the same; there are places in Pakistan where the central government officially "does not guarantee your security".

I have wondered if maybe it would help to excise the tribal regions from both Afghanistan and Pakistan, thus letting the more orderly areas of those countries stabilise, and lumping all the trouble together in a new third country, Fubaristan, in which whacko extremists can do whatever they like but should be aware that western powers will bomb them if we don't like the look of what they are up to.

Dunno about that idea, though. Sounds like it could go wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 614530)

I have wondered if maybe it would help to excise the tribal regions from both Afghanistan and Pakistan, thus letting the more orderly areas of those countries stabilise, and lumping all the trouble together in a new third country, Fubaristan, in which whacko extremists can do whatever they like but should be aware that western powers will bomb them if we don't like the look of what they are up to.

Dunno about that idea, though. Sounds like it could go wrong.

What could possibly go wrong??? That sounds like a great idea!

I'm thinking Asscrackistan is a better name then Fubaristan. though Asscrackistan could end up being a district inside of Fubaristan, along with Eatadikestan and Nutsackistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 614605)

What could possibly go wrong??? That sounds like a great idea!

I think that was what they said in the 1980s about using that Bin Laden guy to fight the soviets in ... where was it again?

How about Trashcanistan?

"Ashcanistan" puns have already been made in US political cartoons. Less potent were "East Abunny" and "The Fun Republic of Chuckles." All in the same cartoon yet, something about a UN council -- might have been on civil rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 614332)

It's all partisan politics. I'd laugh, if I weren't so disgusted

Damm! that sounds just like the Demoncrats during Bush. :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 614795)

Damm! that sounds just like the Demoncrats during Bush. :lol:

Yup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by regular.joe (Post 613954)

If I understand this correctly, to leave Afghanistan before some kind of country stabilizing victory, would only give fire to and embolden our Fundamental Islamic enemies. When speaking about countries where the people with the most get up and go are the insurgents and U.S. Soldiers, I personally laugh at the term "exit strategy". The Taliban definitely has an entrance strategy, all Americans want is an exit strategy. Hmmm......I wonder who will win this one in the long run?

I disagree. I think Afghanistan is merely a strategic move for long term goals in the region. If we gave up Afghanistan, we would give up leverage in the area versus China, India, Iran, and Russia. It would be like giving up the knight holding the center board in a chess match. It also wouldn't be to far fetched to suggest that Pakistan is the main goal here.

Terrorism and freedom is just the excuse to go there. There are places with just as much terror and lack of freedoms yet we are not doing anything there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostra...n_Central_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan_%28Pakistan%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPI_pipeline
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/afpak