I'd have said it's Blair doing whatever Bush asks in America's revenge for 9/11. But then I start wondering just how strong the Taleban side is, what's the problem? Erm...40,000,000... though it seems only 12,500,000 actually live in Afghanistan. The rest are pretty scattered, like 88,000 in the UK, 44,000 in the USA... Blair's got us in some very deep ****, hasn't he? He's labelling everybody against us a terrorist, they're convinced they're freedom fighters resisting the foreign invader out to steal their land. And are we? Always look for the money angle. But don't forget these Pashtun guys beat off the Russians, and the British before them. Let's go home, it's not our money. edit: did Wiki mention Khazikstan? Oil makes for strange bed-fellows.
What few people know is that the US supported the formation of the Taliban government just after they kicked the Russians out. They were fundamentalists, but it was felt that their despotic rule would bring tight control, and hence stability to the region and protect the pipelines. Bit like Saddam, then. Strange bedfellows indeed.
I thought they supplied them with most of the arms they used to kick the Russians out...mind you, they weren't called 'Taliban' then. What goes around, comes around.
Well, not to mention we had just helped them kick the soviets out and it was reasonable to believe that they would stay pissed at Russia for a good long time. In addition, the Taliban promised, and did, massively reduce the amount of opium and heroin coming out of the region. All in all it looked to be a win-win. We get to piss off the Russians, look like we're winning the war on drugs, and it doesn't cost us much. Sure they have human rights issues, and there was that whole bit about blowing up the Buddhas, but, meh, who really cares anyway. Osama Bin Ladin? Great guy, really did a lot to piss off the Russians. Real freedom fighter there. I'd love to file a Freedom of Information Act request for any testimony before congress regarding Osama from before 1991. I'll bet if he's mentioned the words "Freedom fighter" are in the same sentance. How would you like to surprise your congress-critter with that evidence?
I'm unsure about afghanistan. We're there to fix it, just like Iraq, that much is the clear reason for people to stay(or is it? ). How we're doing in our little war over there is debatable, but the war seems to be going well. I know you cite 40M pashtun cpemma, but they're not all going to be fighting men, and given the losses on their side compared with the losses on the allied side(there seem to be a couple of orders of magnitude in difference) I don't see that they'll desire to keep up the current form of attacks for all that long. Of course I could be wrong, many people have been wrong about afghanistan before, but NATO seems fairly dedicated to it, has reasonable support, a good number of troops and huge funds.
The Russians had reasonable support, a good number of troops and huge funds too. Took them 10 years or so to get sick of it and give up. I doubt Nato will last 5. The ONLY way to win this sort of fight is at the bargaining table. A western supported secular government in Afganistan just isn't going to happen, IMO. The tribes have a fierce sense of independence and nationalism (Not the right word, but the best I can come up with) and simply will not tolerate what they see as an occupation by foriegners. From a peace and security and a national interest standpoint I think we were better off with the Taleban in place. I see the modern occupation as a violent period between one theocracy and another.
Was it broke? Undeniably we had some part to play in the establishment of a Taliban regime, because we imposed our own ideas of what was good for Afghanistan (which was: whatever was good for us). But if we go in to change things again, we are simply again imposing our views of what Afghanistan should be like. Perhaps we should let the Afghans work things out for themselves for a change. They're all adults. I'm sure they can manage. Iraq, similarly, was not up to us to "fix". If Saddam was that bad, it was up to his people to get rid of him. All we had to do is stay out of it, and not support him for a decade. If people don't fight for self-determination, they don't earn it, and therefore they don't learn it. But what we have done now is simply exchange one form of imposed rule for another. That token-election we had over there meant nothing, don't kid yourself. Paul Bremer is the real man in charge. And Cthippo: the word you are looking for is "tribalism".
I was referring to after the yankees went in with their toys post-9/11 and beat up a country untill they felt a bit better .
So that makes it OK? We've got air support and bigger guns so we're justified in doing what we like? This isn't a War on Terror, it's a vain attempt to keep our puppet government propped up - exactly why the Russians were in Afghanistan, only they were bad guys, we said so.
The way I'm lookin' at it is: We went in there, we bombed the crap out of their country and removed their government. That makes us responsible for making sure they get back on their feet in the best way thats possible in short order. The best way to get them back and doing ok seems to me right now like it might be by sticking around, investing in the country as we're doing to build lots of new infrastructure that takes the country away from reliance on opium, and into some form of place where they could eventually get to prosperity. It's only worth sticking around and trying to do that if we can actually defeat the taleban though, or at least kick their asses enough that they can't interfere much with the reconstruction effort. If this is found to be impossible over the coming year or so, we should just pack up and leave, let the taleban resume control(and they would, easily) and see it go back to how it was before. We might as well give it a go trying to make something better though, considering how many lives have been lost so far. The militarys of Canada and the UK seem to be doing a pretty good job in the fighting. How effective they can be, I guess, determines how the whole thing turns out.
Yeah, we are going to make everything OK. Look, this is exactly the sort of arrogance I'm talking about. Since when are we the rescuers? Since when are the Afghans helpless little people just waiting for us noble enlightened Westerners to come in and bring them civilisation? If the Afghan people don't like the Taliban, all they have to do is get organised and kick their ass. They outnumber them by a considerable magnitude. But the truth is, the Taliban is still alive and kicking because as fundamentalist bad-ass as they may be, many Afghans still prefer them over us heathen foreigners who keep coming in wave after wave to bomb the crap out of their country, with our disrespect for their Muslim faith and our only interest in the pipelines we build through their country to transport oil and gas they will never get to see a penny of. These are not worldly wise, educated people. They do not consider their situation in the context of complex world politics, 9/11 or the "war on terror". They are tribal. They look at the fellow Afghan Muslim Taliban, and then they look at our heathen foreign invader asses, which, Russian, American or English, all pretty much look the same as far as they are concerned, and they make their choice. Paradoxically our presence creates support for the Taliban. If we left Afghanistan alone, there would be no perceived need to unite against a foreign invader, and it would be much more likely that the Afghan people would actually reject the Taliban as surplus to requirement.
I didn't say rescuers Nexxo. There's a difference between helping someone up from the edge of a cliff, and pulling them back up after trying to push them off it. I didn't say we'd make everything ok, but, at least in the non-American forces, the militaries are trying to improve things. Yes, this is partly done by blowing things up and killing muslim taleban, but it's also partly by building roads and wells in places that have never had them before, and in general trying to replace infrastructure we destroyed or building it where none has been before. It's not going to magically make everything alright, but it might improve the lives of afghans of this generation and the next, if we manage to leave the place with a reasonably stable government and a military capable of fending on the taleban. You might say thats a big if, but it's considerably smaller then your "all they have to do is get organised and kick their ass." - we've all seen what happens when people get organised to fight the power; Tiananmen square being the most poignant example that comes to mind. Given the crappyness that'll ensue for no doubt at least a decade or so if the Taleban get back in, which happens if we leave, I see no moral reason for leaving afghanistan right now. We might as well stick around and give it a shot.
The problem is that the local population are finding it really hard to tell the difference between the guys who pushed them off the cliff, and the guys pulling them back up. These people do not trust us. They have been brutalised long enough to be a bit wary, and building wells and schools is not going to help because experience has taught them that a year down the road someone will come and destroy them again. We are not seen as their allies or benefactors; we are just another occupying force, passing through like the winds of change. If we want lasting change, perhaps we should subsidise the farmers and industry --buy their produce and goods at a good price so they don't have to farm drugs, and they can build their own wells and schools and infrastructure, and perhaps get organised in some form of government because this stuff is for keeps and actually worth protecting. But we won't do that --our economies just want the raw products at the cheapest price, please. Afghanistan is just another third-world country where we get our dry-roasted nuts cheap. It is also the place that transports our oil, and that is why we are really there: because we want control of the country, not for the Afghan people to have it. If we subsidise them through trade, and they actually become wealthier, more educated and more independent, there's no telling what they will do --they may get ideas above their station and want a slice of the oil and gas pie. And the Taliban can hardly be compared with the Chinese Army, dude.
Well I think we just disagree here then Nexxo, you believe that all we're after is the land to transport oil over, I think that at least elements of the occupying countries governments would actually like to see the country improved and the people living more prosperous lives. And the Taleban are just like many other oppressive regiemes; armed, brutal, and desiring of continued existance. I have every faith they'd put down any serious uprising just as brutally as saddam or the Chinese did.
If governments were really that altruistic, there are plenty of other counties where they could have done some good ( I mean, Zimbabwe, anyone?). But those without oil or gas are left to fend for themselves at best, or just economically exploited at worst. If we have good intentions, I do not see them at work in countries without oil. And to clarify: I don't think you can compare the Taliban with the Chinese army in terms of firepower and might. the Chinese army is a lot harder to push over. It is one reason why we are to polite to them.
I agree the chinese are harder for another military to combat, but when unarmed civilians have to fight armed and willing soldiers, it doesn't matter if it's the religious nut Taleban or the Peoples Military, the civvies get to die either way. As for altruism, the UK, the entire "allied" side apart from America, did not choose to go to Afganistan to be altruistic. Let's face it, we went to kick taleban ass and to help the US get some pay-back. But now we're there, and the US is struggling just to keep Kabul safe, we may as well see if we can improve things a bit. Mostly the Allied forces militaries are stretched to the limit, which is obviously a big part of the reason why places that really could do with attention(Darfur, Zimbabwe, Somalia) are being ignored. Good intentions do not bring also the godly ability to be everywhere at once.
If the "civillians" are willing, they can fight and win. Keep in mind that war, especially guerilla war which is what we are discussing here, is political in it's ends, not military. The goal is not to see who can rack up the biggest body count, but rather to make the occupation so painful for the occupier that they decide they would rather be someplace else. This kind of warfare can go on as long as there are people willing to fight for what they believe in. The ONLY way to win this kind of war is, to borrow a Nexxoism, to be the good guy. In order to win you have to convince the people that they are better off with you running things. As you might imagine, it's hard to convince people of that by killing their friends and blowing up their towns. As long as the people think they will be better off with the other side in charge in the end, you are losing. Those places, and to an even greater extent Rwanda were there before 9/11. No one cared then. I think that if the rebels in Darfur were Voodoo instead of Muslim, they would still be off the US radar.
YES! Now we're getting there! And what do they say about the road to Hell? Exactly. As my wife likes to say: "Everything before the 'but' is bollocks". Good intentions are not enough. You need wisdom as well. In an episode of Futurama, God was quoted to say: "If you do it right, it is almost as if you didn't do anything at all." So if we do want to play God, perhaps we could take a leaf out of His book. Just give Afghanistan favoured trading status. Pay well for their produce. Let them export value-added goods (you know, stuff we deliberately don't do now). Give them the opportunity and dignity to earn their own money, build their own country and determine their own future. If they have something real of their own to live for, perhaps they will feel less inclined to blow themselves up just to give us a hard time. Same with the third world. Governmental corruption is rife, but you can bypass that. Don't sell them any weapons --subsidise education and medical care. Don't lend them insane ammounts of money that will end in the pockets of corrupt officials, and come with IMF conditions that screw over their economy and keep them endebted to us for decades. Just pay fair prices for their goods. Allow them to produce and export value-added goods. Subsidise their doctors and nurses to stay and work in their own country. But we don't do that. We only buy the raw, non-value-added produce we need for our industry, and embargo any other exports, thus creating a vulnerable, overspecialised industry that is geared towards one product only and will eventually implode on itself. We sell them weapons to keep their civil conflicts going. We take their doctors and nurses to treat our own chain-smoking, overweight patients so they can't run programmes at home to save their children from simple diseases. And if they won't sell us their natural resources cheap, we simply invade their countries and take them.
You're being intentionally closed off to the idea that something could be started with bad intentions and finished with good ones though Nexxo. I say we might as well try and leave somewhere in a decent state, and you basicly say if we can't fix everywhere we shouldn't do anything. You say just give a taleban run country favoured trading status, but what would that bring other then a stronger islamic republic bolstered by more and better weapons from China(who have fewer scruples then even the US when it comes to selling arms)? Hate mongerers will still stir people up for the slightest percieved injustice done by the west. Short of total and complete isolation which I'd be massively in favour of, just giving fundamentalist governments lots of money doesn't work so well. With what? You want us to stop selling guns Nexxo, that's about 20% of the US's entire fricking income gone in an instant. IIRC it's somewhere a fair bit lower for us, but it's still a massive chunk of money. How are we meant to subsidise education and medical care when the only interface we have with a country is the dictator and his military? Paying fair prices for goods is something that yes, it's a good idea, but(<OK, aparently I cannot swear >?), what happens when all the doctors who havn't left the country start working in the fields because working in the fields pays £5 a day and working as a doctor pays £50 a year? But I guess we need to subsidise the doctors then, pay them an extra £15 a day...taxpayers are gonna love this one. Sorry for the cynicism, I know it's heavy, but I just see your suggestions like I see the "Make Poverty History" thing, it sounds nice, nothing more. I agree with you on many things, and in many parts of even this discussion, but were it as simple as you say, I'm sure some world government with more then 50% decent people would have started to implement some of the procedures by now. Much like miracle cures for illnesses, if such things really existed, the illnesses would no longer be around.
