http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...r-moral-crimes-such-as-fleeing-domestic-abuse What is the right moral choice here? We cant just ignore - we tried that. We cant fix it - were trying that(and probably should have known better.) If there no powerful government the terrorists thrive. If we support a viable government were basically supporting everything bad - except terrorists attacking us. How do you deal with assholes who have nothing.
Well unlike Afghanistan - I wont be effectively planning to destroy you at home while you live in the blissful oblivion.
What was ignorant? Oh wait nothing. Afghanistan is dirt poor and has a huge amount bad guys by any acept moral measure(of course you could be one of those people accept different standard for different cultures and things its ok to evil as long as its cool n your neighborhood.)
You don't know anything about the Taliban or how it works, you don't know anything about Al Qaeda and how it works, you don't know anything about Afghan history broadly or in the last two decades; thus, ignorance. You combine that with a preening sense of superiority that only someone completely ignorant about their own history could apply to another culture uncritically, and then you add to that the assumption that relativism is merely a moral question rather than a useful mode of analysis in some situations. So one way you "fix" Afghanistan is to stop handing the reins of American foreign policy to people who non-think the way you do. It has to be a gradual process, because you motherfuckers are legion and are fond of bathing in the blood of your own soldiers while you grant them sainthood posthumously. But I believe through the magic of distracting you with shiny objects like a better economy and the promise that your children will someday be able to rise above the burden of being your offspring, you can be kept away from the foreign policy table long enough for the occupation to end. Perhaps that's wistful thinking.
Why do you say I dont know - Im rather well read. But If you are suggesting that you spent time in Afghanistan and have some deeper insight then by all means share it. Or you could just look cool and insult me.
Id be more interested in actual points disagreeing with my assessment of Afghanistan than hearing your no so unique and vapid comments about me.
No, we didn't. We meddled, after over a century of other assorted Western meddling, and then cashed out when it stopped being useful as a proxy war. That's not an argument *for* ignoring, but simply that we haven't done that. Define fixing. The problem was the presence of Al Qaeda. We could have had them on a silver platter with no occupation immediately following 9/11. Before that, we were free to normalize relations with the Taliban at any time (just as we do with all sorts of unsavory governments when they have things we want) and negotiate accordingly. For better or worse, the closest thing to a viable government in Afghanistan's near future is the Taliban. No one in Afghanistan gives a shit about the upcoming elections, as they are girding for war upon American departure. The Taliban have already assassinated or co-opted a good number of important leaders, and no longer orient their strategy around NATO because it's considered a solved problem. Again, no. We're not supporting a viable government now, and we haven't tried it when it's been there. Well, one forward looking way to handle it is not to put people in that situation in the first place by treating them as negotiable assets in the clash of empires. That suggests that more intervention is generally not going to be a way to make the situation better, no matter how much one wishes individually that the Taliban was less...Talibanish. You can ask a ruthless, realpolitik son-of-a-bitch like Michael Scheuer who worked the Al Qaeda desk forever as an ignored stepson in the CIA; in Imperial Hubris and other works he outlines the gory details of the policy problem in terms of American interests, all of which can be addressed without occupations that actually make things worse in the long run. He doesn't say this because he's shy about violence or because he has anything in mind besides the annihilation or neutralization of threats to American security. He says it because he's not ignorant of the relevant evidence available on the history of Afghanistan and he can do the math. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but it's worth using him as a point of reference simply because it stands in such contrast with the usual "strong foreign policy" chickenhawk line.
What about splitting Afghanistan between its neighbors? It seems like in the era of 4th gen warfare and interstitial landlocked failed states countries like Afghanistan are doomed to, at best, a soporific pastoral indifference and likely to remain essentially unable to deal in any way with external destabilizing forces that will always be better funded and more ideologically motivated antagonists, state based or not. Terrorism, drugs, illegal commodities, slave trades, these things thrive in these in between areas that lack a tax base or anything but a shell of a central government.
This is an exceptionally bad idea. Maybe you arent aware with the first half the 20th century. Parceling countries and regions so supposedly more trust worthy nations can keep them in line just makes you complicit in subjugation and abuse.
While I'm sure Turkmenistan appreciates your generocity, this seems like a pretty questionable plan. Not only would we have to get the world on board with it, but I have a hard time imagining we could even just get most people in America to agree to handing Iran some of the world's most fertile opium farmlands an increase in size and terror power. Would India be okay with increasing the size of Pakistan? And how do you divide it? Do Iran and Pakistan get the lion's share and then Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan get a smaller slice? Or do you give an even cut and then expect that everyone will be happy? Oh, and this all completely ignores that the Afghan state is older than the US and while there are tribal elements, there are people who almost certainly would rather remain Afghanistani than suddenly find out that they're Iranian or Pakistani. Prior to the Taliban Afghanistan was a surprisingly liberal and happening place. The ideal of getting it back to that state may be long past feasibility, may never have been feasible to start with, but carving the place up and washing your hands of the situation just seems like a terrible idea. And yeah, dartwick surprisingly makes a good point. We did this before. It did not work out so well.
We largely ignore Afghanistan during the time that the Taliban rose to power. The current government is viable in as much we prop it up - which we are doing. Making the Taliban a viable goverment that doesnt allow terrorists mean giving them at least a small carrot to keep them in line - which means we are supporting ass holes. Basically you are saying we have to support assholes.
... but the alternative is leaving these in between countries at the mercy of whatever multi national entity invested with the will and means to exploit it. In a world increasingly driven by international trade authority there will be an almost never ending demand for black market economies to provide whatever goods are normally prohibited. And it's clear that "enlightened" colonialism is impossible, and sponsoring "democratic" governments that have no support amounts to market driven cronyism. I see these states as being tragic black holes of poverty and misopportunity that current sociopolitical agents have no clear solution for uplifting.
I really doubt anyone wants it, but in practical terms the geography wouldn't cooperate. The population is mostly in the northeast which is mountainous as hell. Is there a significant amount of Afghan nationalism outside of the capital city bureaucrats? I thought it was mostly tribal allegiences still.
Yes, but the reason that's a problem for the US is specifically because of actions taken before that. Ergo, it's not the "ignoring" per se that's the problem. It's not viable in any meaningful sense, in that it requires that propping up and is accomplishing nothing during that time except lining the pockets of Kharzai associates. In any case, as we talked about in another thread, it's unlikely to be an issue for much longer. I'm saying the fundamental problem is thinking of it as our choice, both practically and philosophically. If the US wants to organize its foreign policy around "no assholes" rather than its interests, then it would do well to clean its own house and prepare to set a precedent never before attempted in great power policy. There's plenty of middle ground there, as well, but in general I think the default option when you're not sure what's going to be least destructive is to take a genuine approach to nonintervention (as opposed to a fraudulent one, like our Iran policy). Edit: forgot link.
The part down in the southwest near Iran contains some of the most bounteous opium crops in the world. It's possible Iran might be okay with taking that little problem off of everyone's hands.
So much fail in this thread right here. The problem with Afghanistan dates back roughly to the Mongol Horde killing the fuck out of Central Asia (no, really, that's pretty much the exact way to describe it) followed by centuries of exploitation and well-intentioned imperialism generally running smack into angry heavily armed hillbillies who want nothing more than to be left alone to kill the fuck out of each other (having learned it from the best). Combine that with the popularity of proxy wars being fought over it (USA/USSR, India/Pakistan, al-Qaeda/21st century) and you have the recipe for a fairly blighted place. I don't have time right now to flame further, so basically buy everything by this guy and start reading. Or just keep blathering, because people love it when Americans don't know shit about the rest of the world!
Everyone here likes to say everyone else here is uninformed. But no one is actually disputing my title assertion - its just not popular.
You ask for explanations, you get them, then you move on to another comfortable stupid thing that has the "I know you are but what am I" hook that makes you tick. And then you're surprised when no one takes your juvenile headlines seriously, no doubt things you came up with while surrounded by the mountain of Archie comics that make up your source literature. You do all that while writing the way teenagers text, indicating you have as little respect for your ideas as "everyone else". But yeah, it's just that you're a revolutionary who has paradigm shifts for breakfast and no one can handle your truths.
The USA is full of shit heads and run by dicks. Norway is full of shit heads and run by dicks. It can pretty much apply to anywhere, really.
Norway is also a small, mountainous country that has been exploited by generations of foreign rulers while the native hill-folk would much rather just get on with their internal feuding.
Lots of places got the shit killed out of them by Mongols, and had centuries of exploitation and whatever "well-intentioned" imperialism is. Not that many of them had Kabul in the 50's and 60's* going on and then ended up where it is today, and I'm not sure how useful going Longue Duree on the analysis of its present day troubles is going to be for the purposes of the matter at hand. I would be curious what portions you accord to what things in your recipe, as I wouldn't really feel much of a need to go back further than 19th century Britastrophe with a big punctation mark on the last few decades of agonizing mass destruction and proxy wars. *Yes, there are a lot of loaded assumptions about culture in assuming that was a better state, as well as the absence of photographs about the periphery relative to the metropole and the class differences and AIEEEeeeeeee. Tragically, it's not much of a burden of proof that's required relative to what followed.
Yeah, I didn't really have time to finish the thought of "things were pretty decent for a while, right up until the Daud monarchy ran smack up against the Cold War and 40 years of proxy wars began". Although ironically those pics could have been taken in Soviet Kabul as well (probably right down to the 50's fashions). My invoking the Mongol Horde is the usual historical explanation to fundamentalist neocons who think the problem with Afghanistan's lack of development is simply Muslims Are Evil Bad People. After all Samarkand in 1100 made Paris look like Kandahar in 2010.
This may come as a rude shock to you, but we don't have to support anyone. Afghanistan is an independent nation. It's not our problem.
A bunch of unrestrained unhappy violent men + a rich bad guy dumping money there. If we leave you instantly get part 1.
Yes. The current difference is that it currently consists of a bunch of unrestrained unhappy violent men who conveniently have US Marines in hunting rifle range. Clearly this is a much better status quo because it is vitally important that NATO stay engaged in Afghanistan's enduring battles between the Pashtuns and Tajiks. (for bonus points, guess how many thousands of miles Kabul is from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in Brussels!)
I'm guessing not as far as the distance from Kabul to the Australian Defence Force HQ in Canberra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Slipper
Unless, naturally, the Afghans bomb Pearl Harbor. As opposed to a bunch of unrestrained unhappy violent US soldiers who conveniently have Afghans in range? Canada is full of shit but the dick who runs it imported his modus operandi from the United States. I wonder if there's a lesson in this.
