Over the last couple of days, there've been several posts about the desire to eliminate the Taliban -- not only because of the terrorism-issue, but because of the human-rights hell that exists over there. Some people mentioned WWII as an example of how that would work. Personally, I don't think we can simply go in and take over and then leave. If we were do something of this nature in Afghanistan (or Iraq, which might also be a consideration), I think two things also have to happen: (1) Economic aid. The difference between Germany post-WW1 and post-WW2 was that the second time, we gave Germany and Japan billions and billions in economic aid. After the first WW, we basically left Germany in ruins, and all it took was one powerful voice screaming "look what they did" to rally the country into WW2. (2) Provide defense. The other aspect of what we did in WW2 is make Germany and Japan strong allies. Germany was incorporated into NATO along with Western Europe. Japan was forbidden from having a military, but guaranteed that the US military would protect them. If we do go into Afghanistan/Iraq, I think its absolutely vital that we do both of the above again. Otherwise, the poverty and anger will remain, and eventually another leader will come and rally people around "America caused this", whether true or not. My question is, do you think Americans would accept sending billions of dollars to countries in the Middle East, some of whose people currently hate us, and do you think Americans would accept these types of countries becoming our allies? If we could accomplish all of this, I would agree with the "invasion" method as a potential course of action. However, if we weren't willing to follow through (as occurred with the US leaving the Kurds to be slaughtered in Iraq), then I would hope we don't even consider something along these lines (I consider eliminating bin Laden and his group a separate issue that should occur anyway). Personally, while I would support this particular route, I don't think most Americans would go for spending billions of dollars to help Middle Eastern countries grow. Europe is far easier because they are more "like us" and more integrated into the world economy.
While it's obviously far, far, FAR easier said than done, it's been my thought the whole time that actions like these should be taken in concert with the whole eradicating terrorism (with terrorism getting first priority) part of our plan. It seems to me to be one of the few ways to bring some semblance of peace to the Middle East.
I agree that its absolutely far easier said than done -- this would be a hellish operation to make work. Basically, after the invasion, this amounts to bribery -- give them money and protection so they like us. I think the long-term benefits are enormous though. I also agree that if we can develop positive relations in a Islam countries throughout the Middle East, it might spread and help extend the peace, as has worked in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt to some extent.
I think you're failing to see this from a coalition perspective. We are not going to occupy Afghanistan. In a sense, there is not a country to occupy, since most of the infrastructure there has been destroyed by the Soviet invasion and the subsequent civil war. What remains we are about to totally destroy. There is nothing to "occupy", and we have no interest in doing it. We are going to go in, create a hellish stone age, and leave. They will be back where they were before the Taliban took control, only this time we'll keep an eye on the area and make sure that no one there has the capability to attack us. If you don't like it, then write your congressman... If anyone "occupies" Afghanistan, it will be a multinational or Russian force. Iraq, on the other hand, is going to be invaded, and it will be occupied. Our Saudi "friends" will probably insist on that - they are very fearful of an Iranian hegemon in the region. Again, though, it will be a multinational occupation force... If you meant to hit on the psychological factors - how we can get young muslims to stop hating us and get them to not be willing to attack us - there are no easy answers. In fact, you'll probably just have to wait for a generation of them to die (which could take 80 years) and blanket the next generation with the message that the US is not evil and that militancy is not the way to solve problems... Now, I realize that that sounds hypocritical considering what I've just proposed - and it is. But this current generation of young Arab muslim men - and I mean only those who would become suicide bombers, of which there are tens of thousands - has been brainwashed, so why not the next with a different message? Until you are willing to do that, you are fighting a losing war in the long term. Feel free to call me a hypocrite if it has a chance to end the suffering in a few decades.
treeman, since you know a lot of this stuff, what is our stance on the opposition forces trying to take over afghanistan. Would we like them to be in power or would we rather have a whole new government in place. also wouldn't leaving a "hellish stone age" in Afghanistan set us up for the same type of problems we already have or was your plan to make sure they don't attack us the solution to that (that's not a sarcastic statement if read that into it).
F4P: Good questions. The Northern Alliance (in Afghanistan, a loose - very loose coalition of people who don't want to live under the Taliban) is a good candidate for post-war rule. Their leader has just been assassinated, though (by the Taliban), and I'm not sure what leadership they can provide. But, I have to bring up the strike on Kabul that they launched just hours after the WTC/Pentagon strikes. Remember when you saw on TV Afghanistan's capital getting hit? That was them, and it was really a message to us - it was their way of saying "We are with you when you strike". The military value of those strikes was negligent from the Northern Alliance's point of view, but the political message was clear to the Taliban: "the Northern Alliance and the US are about to take you out". But yes, they will be a strong candidate for rulership when we remove the Taliban. We would prefer Afghanis ruling Afghanis, as opposed to Russians ruling them (Americans will not do that particular job). I won't go into any more detail than that.
That was my assumption, and why I figured we would want the Alliance to take over. Thanks for the other answers.
I wouldn't bank on any assumptions at this point, F4P. For example, I said that Americans wouldn't do the job. I could very well be wrong. For all I know China will be controlling it six months from now. We are going to be seeing some bizarre sh*t down the line, and not too far down the line. That is the absolute BEST advice I can give you right now - don't bet on anything, except that the Taliban will be a bad dream 6 months from now.
Why glorify the Northern Alliance? For those who don't know, they're not a substantially better solution than the Taliban. More fundamentalists. Just not quite as bad. But considerably more conservative then say, the ayatollahs in Iran, which is saying quite a bit. Sorry, that's not a government we want to just leave in place to clean up. Also, the Northern Alliance is a very loose confederation of minorities that disliked the Taliban even more than each other. Their leader, an extremely capable man and war hero, is dead. I'm very doubtful that his successor will be able to maintain control. As for Afghanistan being a hellish mess... well, yes it is. But so was Germany at the end of WWI. Give them aid, build their economy, and there will be gratitude and greater understanding. Leave them with nothing, and they'll fill the void with a desire for revenge. This seems to always happen when you invade a country and then leave without providing for long-term reconciliation.
Excuse me, haven, but when has there ever been a stable government in Afghanistan? It's Central Asia's latrine. The Northern Alliance represents our only hope of Afghani government aside from the Taliban, and the Taliban is no longer an option. Like I said, we can leave Russians, or even Americans, or if we really get a coalition going we can leave a few Saudis or Egyptians (the nationalities that bombed us) there. But the Afghanis will only listen to Afghanis. And I am well aware that the Northern Alliance just lost its leader. A comparable situation for us would've been losing George Washington before Bunker Hill. He was their Washington, from everything I've heard. What exactly do you have in mind, BTW? We know that Afghanistan is going to be invaded. How would you propose stabilizing it afterwards? Yeah, that's what I thought. There is no other option.
This is kind of being picky, but what is now Afghanistan did have several hundred years of stable rule many hundred years ago. I point this out only because some people might be of the opinion that lack of natural resources or something might prevent it from ever being stable. This is not the case.
That is kind of picky, but you're right in essence - the goods are there for a stable government to exist. Aren't they? Opium poppies do not have to be their main export. Or do they? (what else do they really have to offer the world? they straddle a once-powerful trade route, made obsolete by air and rail travel...) Their other main export is mercs. Mercenaries. Mujahadeen. They have two exports, and no leverage. Their only hope is westernizing their education system and producing bankers/financiers...
I almost missed this - you aren't speaking of the Khans who ruled there, are you? Well, you have to be... Those guys were bloodthirsty murderers. They suffocated people for sport. Literally. They'd put three people in a box with one small air hole. They'd generally put this box in the Khan's war tent (the tent he brought with him on conquests - an extravagent tent, the legends say). The Khan would eat dinner on this box, listening to the cries of the suffocating men inside. When he got bored he'd put his plate or cup over the air hole... These are the people you're talking about? I know, the Khans were originally Mongol raiders, but their empire spread all over eastern Europe and Asia. Or are you talking about the Sultans? Yeah, the Ottoman Empire brought great things to the world. Lotsa stability...
treeman -- i think your take is right...i do see an occupation of Iraq when this thing is over. Maybe they'll surrender to CNN crews agains this time. As I said before, this time finish the job. I just wonder how history will look at it since it's the son of the former president who's doing it. Some revisionist historian one day will tell us all how this was a personal grudge by the Bush family against Saddam (remember, there was an assasination attempt thwarted of George Sr. during the Clinton years).
It does not take a generation to change views between nations. Look at Russia, just 15 years or so ago, they were our hated ally, now most russian people think of us as friends. It can happen in Afganastan, and Iraq, and Iran etc..etc.. too, if people are allowed to think for themselves without being suppressed by a totalatarian government, masquerading their politcal agendas and profit taking behind a veil of religion. DaDakota
<B>We are not going to occupy Afghanistan. In a sense, there is not a country to occupy, since most of the infrastructure there has been destroyed by the Soviet invasion and the subsequent civil war. What remains we are about to totally destroy. </B> I disagree. I don't see us going in there and blowing away a bunch of innocent civilians. Not only because of world pressure, but because that's not effective. Unless you have concentrated city centers, bombings aren't useful. If we send in ground troops and eliminate the government, I believe we will be obligated to put something in its place. <B>Iraq, on the other hand, is going to be invaded, and it will be occupied. Our Saudi "friends" will probably insist on that - they are very fearful of an Iranian hegemon in the region. Again, though, it will be a multinational occupation force... </B> Regardless of the force used to occupy the country, the US is really the only country with the means to help rebuild. My question is whether we would help rebuild or leave the country in ruins for the next power-hungry dictator to take over and rally. Unfortunately, I believe it will be the latter, and in 15-20 years, Iraq will be as bad or worse than it is now (like Germany, post WW1). Another interesting possibility would be to then give Iraq to a potential ally in the region. For example, in exchange for support from Iran, let Iran rule Iraq (if the people don't hate each other, which I think is now the case), or give it to Saudi or Egypt or something -- it gives them vast oil resources and thus $$, making them closer friends. That allows us to also build friends in the Middle East because it takes away the evil American imperialism argument. I don't think this would happen either, though.
I don't think it makes sense to leave either Iraq or Afghanistan in the hands of a rebel, dissident group (or in Iran's control!). When the US occupied Japan following WW2, we didn't leave them in the hands of China or an anti-Emporer faction. We occupied the country ourselves, long enough to implement a democracy. They, like the Afghans and the Iraqis, had never had such a government before, but it nonetheless proved very effective. If we want to leave one or the other of these countries in the hands of their own people (which we certainly do), then it only makes sense to set up a democratically elected leadership that would truly represent the people. Of course it's harder, but I also think it is the only right thing to do if/when we invade.
Leave Iraq in the hands of Iran?! Iran is not our ally. A friend of mine was telling me that a reason why Saddam is still alive is so that Iran won't invade Iraq and completely disrupt the Middle East. I'm not sure if this is true, but I really wouldn't want Iran controlling Iraq. "It's an 'N'!" "It's a 'Q'!" "It's an 'N'!" "It's a 'Q'!"
<B>Leave Iraq in the hands of Iran?! Iran is not our ally. </B> That's actually why I mentioned them. Iran is currently in a power-struggle. The moderate leadership and youth of the country are tending towards better relations to the west. The hardline conservatives are holding that back. By giving Iraq to Iran, we do two things: (1) We are basically giving them a vast amount of terrority and cash/resources (oil). That makes them indebted to us and helps strengthen the moderates within the country. This also takes out the religious "American hates Islam" argument. How can these religious fanatics argue that America is evil when a former enemy like Iran works with us and supports us? (2) It also solves the problem of what to do with Iraq. The other option, in my opinion, is billions and billions of dollars in economic aid to rebuild the country, and complete military protection by the US (see my original post in this thread). I honestly don't believe those are things that the American people would tolerate. This, of course, is all predicated on Iran cooperating with the US and making the necessary moves and guarantees (that's why I mentioned other more moderate countries such as Saudi as an alternative). The philosophy is basically the same as what we did to improve relations in Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- bribery. "Helping the enemy" seems contrary to logic, but then again, so did giving billions of dollars in aid to Japan and Germany after WW2. BTW -- the whole giving Iraq away thing is a purely theoretical alternative. I don't think there's any way reality would allow this, even if it was the best alternative.
Still think this is sounding like vietnam all over again. Underestimating the difficulty of guerilla warfare in unfavorable terrain. This is not the open flat desert of Iraq. Oh well, I do think that higher up in the ranks we have a reservoir of experience from that era.
