It is looking like NATO is not going to give us much more hlep in Afghanistan. We are seeing how hard it has been for the Israelis to conquer a couple of million Palestinians. Exerpts from an interesting article discussing how our drones and missiles may be very popular in the US as our forces have no risk. but it is not very successful in terms of ending the war or making us safer. ********* PIERRE SPREY: And what happens on the ground is for every one of those impacts you get five or ten times as many recruits for the Taliban as you've eliminated. The people that we're trying to convince to become adherents to our cause have turned rigidly hostile to our cause in part because of bombing and in part because of, you know, other killing of civilians from ground forces. But we're dealing with a society here, that's based on honor, you know? The Pashtun are very ancient people. BILL MOYERS: This is the tribe in the southern part of the- PIERRE SPREY: Well, it's not a tribe. It's a nation. This is 40 million people spread across Afghanistan and Pakistan, you know, who don't even recognize that border. It's their land. BILL MOYERS: Forty million? PIERRE SPREY: There's 40 million of them. That's a nation, not a tribe. Within it are tribal groupings and so on. But they all speak the common language. And they all have a very similar, very rigid, in lots of ways very admirable code of honor much stronger than their adherence to Islam. PIERRE SPREY: They have to resist, you know, being invaded, occupied, bombed, and killed. It's a matter of honor. And they're willing to die in unbelievable numbers to do that. BILL MOYERS: Are you suggesting that these strikes could be contributed to the destabilization of Pakistan, one of our allies? MARILYN YOUNG: It's clear that they're doing that. I mean, there never was before an organization called Taliban in Pakistan. This didn't exist as an organization. It does now. It's unclear to me as well the relationship between our punitive enemy, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. That's unclear. And it's, it's very unclear what American policy will be with respect to either group. Mainly what's unclear is what our goal is in Afghanistan. It's really unclear. BILL MOYERS: Well, we went there to get Osama bin Laden after 9/11 and to free Afghanistan from the brutal grip of the Taliban, religious extremists who were wrecking misery and creating a base there for al Qaeda, right? That was- PIERRE SPREY: And we failed miserably on both missions, you know? al Qaeda's obviously flourishing, undoubtedly stronger around the world than it was when we started this in 2001. And what did we liberate the country from? We certainly caused the Taliban to withdraw. We didn't defeat them. They withdrew. And Afghanistan turned into a battleground for warring huge, extremely violent drug gangs. All these provincial governors, all these people we call warlords euphemistically are large-scale drug gangsters. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01302009/transcript1.html
More from the really great article. ********** BILL MOYERS: There was a photo the other day of a protest in Pakistan, a few days after a drone attacked. The banner reads, quote, "Bombing on tribes. Obama's first gift to Pakistan." Now, that's part of the blowback, isn't it? PIERRE SPREY: That's incredibly dangerous. MARILYN YOUNG: Yeah. PIERRE SPREY: I mean, I don't think people in America have any sense of how dangerous that is. By bombing into those areas, those traditional Pashtun areas, that the Pakistani government long ago made a pact, you know, at the founding of the state of Pakistan to never invade those areas and to leave the Pashtun to govern themselves. And we are forcing the Pakistanis to break that pact, both on the ground with their army. And we're breaking it by bombing the Pashtun in Pakistan. That is taking a weak and also rotten Pakistani government and crumbling it. That's putting them on the horns of a dilemma that they don't need. Why is that so dangerous to us? Because this is a nuclear armed country.
Do they suggest an alternative? Or is it simply to let Al Queda have free reign in that region of the world? As for the destabilizing of Pakistan - let's be real here. Musharraf took power in a military coup less than 10 years ago. The country has never been stable.
we are not going to defeat afghanis they are just gonna outlast us and after killing another cool million of them or more like the russians did we will withdraw dude the russians were hunting them with there copters and killing entire villages and having fun doing it and they still did not pacify them the afghanis are the toughest people on earth no one has fought for longer or had more experience living in such a tough country or being killed by foreigners like them. taleban or not we will turn them all into taleban with time and karzai knows it
Well nobody is saying that Pakistan was a model of democracy, just that Musharaf overthrowing the government and assuming power was more stable than a virtual civil war. I hardly think that the only alternative is to have Al Qaeda with free reign or bombing civilians from the air, which seems to be alienating the whole region.
Maybe so - but he wasn't ruling with the support of his people. There was going to be instability regardless of the US actions, so you may have been on the verge of civil war regardless. But here's the problem - the purpose of trying not to alienate the region is to help win the war against Al Qaeda. But if you've conceded to losing that war by giving them free reign, it really is irrelevant, except from a humanitarian standpoint. I think the rationale the US uses is simply we can choose between maybe losing that area to violence or definitely losing against Al Qaeda, so we choose the latter. If there IS a civil war against a military dictatorship, the US is prepared to take out Pakistani nukes, so while that part is a big concern, it's not a concern at the same level as, say, North Korea. And then they'd have even more free reign to go into the tribal territories. The bigger concern is what type of government would replace the Musharraf government - would it be a democracy or would it be an Islamic religious government.
Except the previous empires have aimed to go conquer that region - that's not what we're trying to do here. We may face the same problems and the result may be the same, but the circumstances are different. We're actually engaging in a civil war where we have the support of a substantial portion of the country (or would, if we provide reconstruction funds), as opposed to fighting the entire country.
It is cool to think of a thriller movie type operation to seize Pakistani nukes , but it could literally blow up in our face. The US has demonstrated that it could care less if there is a democracy in Pakistan, Gaza, Iran or wherever and that is why they supported Musharraf so much. If you are assuming that an Islamic religious government seeks 100% suicide for all, as is often foolishly claimed about Iran for instance I call bs.
An Islamist regime in Pakistan would only come to power by using anger at the US as its driving force - so any Islamist regime there would be staunchly anti-US. It will also be staunchly anti-India, which means tensions and conflict will rise there. And an Islamist regime, by definition, rules by Islamic law, meaning that the rights and freedoms of non-Islamic citizens in Pakistan would be reduced.
Right - but the alternative they seem to be proposing is to simply definitely lose the struggle against Al Qaeda. I'm not sure how that's a better option.
Like Vietnam? The same caution applies to the Kabulis and whichever group of tribal leaders whose support we have this week. They aren't any more prepared to control the region than the US is or the Soviets were or the Mongols were or the Greeks were. We understood this 20 years ago, and we used it against the Soviets.
While there are differences in technology, methodology, etc, I would argue the challenges in Afghanistan now are more similar to Vietnam than to previous attempts to conquer Afghanistan. Certainly true - but neither is the Taliban at this point. So in theory, a government with US funds and resources should be more capable than another option there right now.
No they are simply saying this-- try something new since bombing is strenghtening Al Qaeda. You may have a point that they are not defining what they mean aside from not relying nearly exclusively on a military soloution.
Absolutely - I totally agree with that. I don't think you can eliminate the military component, but you also have to incorporate a "winning the hearts & minds" component - which we did well at first in Afghanistan but kind of fell off when we didn't live up to our promises with reconstruction and the like. I think the best strategy is to take and hold territory and then start an aggressive infrastructure building program and train the people to defend themselves. Then move aggressively forward to the next area. The reconstruction builds loyalty and then letting them defend themselves lets you move on. The Taliban can't retake that land without the support of the people, so you have to try to cut their ability to do that off. Find everything people don't like about the Taliban and emphasize and reemphasize that that would be the alternative.
This is probably the best way, though it will take quite a few years and would be devilishly expensive. Once they hate us is it really easy to turn it around?It is probably well beyond what Americans are really willing to invest in Afghanistan. It is also important not to conflate the Taliban with Al Qaeda. Believe it or not, from I've read, there is a newer element that do not take orders from the deposed leaders supposedly hiding in Pakistan who are declining in influence. The Taliban in Afghanistan are more responsive to what the people didn't like about the crew we overthrew.
That's great. Elaborate on that. Answer the question of what are the alternatives rather than dance around the question as though you were Deney Terrio. You see...it is much more difficult when you have to make the real world tactical decisions rather than sit in an ivory tower and criticize with no responsibility to devise an alternate strategy.
That's a highly optimistic view of the situation, Major. While there is a bit of hyperbole involved in comparing today's Afghanistan, and the US led attempt to defeat the Taliban/AQ by force of arms, to the numerous failed attempts to conquer the "country" over the centuries, or to Vietnam... to say "the circumstances are different. We're actually engaging in a civil war where we have the support of a substantial portion of the country (or would, if we provide reconstruction funds), as opposed to fighting the entire country"... ignores a crucial element. There is no "entire country" to fight and never has been. The region has always been divided ethnically and tribally, with shifting loyalties that can never be counted on. There is no "substantial portion of the country" giving us support. There are the tribes and tribal groupings that we have managed to buy, either with money, power, or both. Then there is everyone else. Corruption is rampant and makes that in Mexico, for example, look like a walk in the park. You say we could cement the loyalty of those currently supporting us if we provided the reconstruction funds promised, and not delivered, after the superb victory, post 9/11, that Bush pissed away. If that window was ever open, it closed long ago. Just as Bush and company tossed away a chance to create a stable Iraq immediately after the war, by retaining the Iraqi Army and the middle and lower level of the officer corps, so did he also toss our chances for a relatively stable (as stable as it ever gets) Afghanistan by withdrawing so much of our assets, both military and intelligence, putting the bulk of our resources in Iraq, and much of the treasure that should have been pumped into Afghanistan straight away to even have a decent shot at a government Americans might recognize. That ship has sailed, in my opinion. John McCain says we are losing the war in Afghanistan right now. I wouldn't argue with him.
The United States can't ever win in Afghanistan. The Afghanis are the only ones who can really defeat the Taliban. The Iraqi people have won in Iraq so far with our help. The elections in Iraq last month were violence free, and every party that had an Islamic adjective attached to the party name lost support. Even the Sadrists went from 11% to 3% in the polls. We need to find a way to support the Afghanis as we have supported the Iraqis, and we have a chance to help the Afghanis win their country finally from the extremist thugs.
