George W. Bush's administration needs investigation

[Illuminatus Primus]

America failed to destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan and didn't bomb the warlords into submission, allowing the possibility of a stable Afghanistan to be nonexistant. Karzai's government will remain a relative joke ruling only Kabul until overthrown by a warlord, and it will be only a matter of time before the heroin from those fields floods the Western market.

[HemlockGrey]

Bah. The US military forces should occupy Afganistan for as long as it takes to rebuild the nation's infrastructure.

[Mr Bean]

Investgation? For somthing that minor?(In the grand scheme of American Politics thats a piss in the oil-tanker to use one of Bushs Own Comparisons, how about the fact we still have as much as 1/15 of the populas wishing Americans where dead, They are STILL today occsionaly comming under fire from hiding Taliban Fighters.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Their hate is directly proportional to lifestyle. Quality of life and infrastructure goes back up, they'll love USA. We should at least give Karzai a chance, and stop part of our own drug problem rather then buying off the drug lords cooperation by not torching the fields.

[Iceberg]

Their hate is directly proportional to lifestyle. Quality of life and infrastructure goes back up, they'll love USA. We should at least give Karzai a chance, and stop part of our own drug problem rather then buying off the drug lords cooperation by not torching the fields.

Many Afghani farmers need the income they get from the sale of their poppies/heroin in order to survive. I'm not saying it's right for them to do it, but it may be a necessary evil until Karzai's government can get its feet under it and start subsidizing its farmers like all the western governments do.

[Kelly Antilles]

Their hate is directly proportional to lifestyle. Quality of life and infrastructure goes back up, they'll love USA. We should at least give Karzai a chance, and stop part of our own drug problem rather then buying off the drug lords cooperation by not torching the fields.

Many Afghani farmers need the income they get from the sale of their poppies/heroin in order to survive. I'm not saying it's right for them to do it, but it may be a necessary evil until Karzai's government can get its feet under it and start subsidizing its farmers like all the western governments do.

Sounds like tobacco farmers.

[weemadando]

Afghanistan under Western/US control:

Kabul city, the airfields capable of handling Coalition planes.

Afghanistan under warlord control:

The rest.

Afghanistan is less stable now than it was under the Taliban.

[Newtonian Fury]

That's why in some ways the Taliban was accepted. It did establish order in the midst of chaos and revolutions.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The major airfield was in Qandahar, not Kabul. We established a presence there not because of the military, but as PR for the cameras....capital returned to "liberated popular" control.

[weemadando]

Sorry, I shouold have phrased that better...

Kabul AND the airfields capable of handling US planes.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

If such an uprising occurs, US forces should be able to take care of it.

The Afghani people are very grateful that they're not under the Taliban regime anymore, even if their new government won't last.

[Illuminatus Primus]

"If such an uprising occurs?"

Surely you're joking. The warlords already do control all of Afghanistan except for Qandahar and Kabul, essentially.

We should be happy that those "happy" Afghans are working in poppy fields that will flood Europe and America with heroin?

[Carcharodon]

Everyone criticizes us for not getting more involved. Yet we're trying to build the Afghan army, because everyone who thinks about Afghanistan rationally knows a heavy US presence would be just as resented as the Russian presence of the 80s, irrespective of our good intentions. Then for sure nothing productive would get done. That's just the way these people think and live. They're among the most ruggedly individualistic societies in the world, and always have been. The Taliban did bring stability, but they were also deeply resented for being predominantly foreign.

It's long and tedious work, because we're starting from next to nothing and trying to overcome centuries of ethnic divisions at the same time. As far as infrastructure development goes, sending in the massive numbers of civilian workers that will be required for that task would entail great risks to them while the country still lacks an indigenous army able to protect them and dedicated to the task. Maybe we should be more willing to take those risks, but you've got to admit it's a lot to ask of anyone. And recall, if you will, that Iran of all countries promised a big chunk of change that hasn't materialized either. Everyone's being cautious about the situation, not just the US.

And bombing local warlords would be the singular worst thing we could do, even though it makes perfect military sense and is logically justifiable. Remember Somalia, anyone?

I believe Afghanistan will get fixed, but it is going to take time, and the US will have to accept that no matter which way we go about, a lot of people won't like it. But better those people be pundits in the West itself than the people of Afghanistan.

[Illuminatus Primus]

"And bombing local warlords would be the singular worst thing we could do, even though it makes perfect military sense and is logically justifiable. Remember Somalia, anyone?"

How else to you get them to cooperate or to stop doing what we slaughtered the Taliban for? The Soviets were an occupying presence. I'm talking about dropping the hammer when one of these assholes steps out of line.

And no one has addressed the blaring stupidity of trying to buy cooperation from drug lords by not torching the poppy fields. They need to grow food for their own survival. I don't care if it brings them a couple extra bucks because its a lucratic enterprise, any thinking national leader would be concerned about the massive influx of heroin on his streets in a couple years as a direct result of his actions.

[Sea Skimmer]

"And bombing local warlords would be the singular worst thing we could do, even though it makes perfect military sense and is logically justifiable. Remember Somalia, anyone?"

How else to you get them to cooperate or to stop doing what we slaughtered the Taliban for? The Soviets were an occupying presence. I'm talking about dropping the hammer when one of these assholes steps out of line.

And no one has addressed the blaring stupidity of trying to buy cooperation from drug lords by not torching the poppy fields. They need to grow food for their own survival. I don't care if it brings them a couple extra bucks because its a lucratic enterprise, any thinking national leader would be concerned about the massive influx of heroin on his streets in a couple years as a direct result of his actions.

The Soviets used everything from Fencers to heavy armor to mustard gas on the Afghans and they still ended up withdrawing, and unlike American forces in Vietnam they where defeated in open combat many times. Ten years and the continual presence of nearly ten divisions worth of forces where not enough.

Shutup and learn some history Moron.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're ignoring my point. We're talking politics and drug control, not conquest and setting up a police state, so I believe it is you who are mistaken. The Taliban rolled over under the pressure of American air superiority, and it isn't hard to see why the most recalitrant and racially seperatist warlords couldn't be cowed by a couple American 2000-lb bombs. I'm not talking conquest. Obviously moronic. But kill some of the uncoopeative warlords arsenals, and vehicles and men, and they will capitulate for fear of losing more--and being vulnerable to other regional factions. And why isn't napalm an option against poppy fields? We could at least try. Again, I am not speaking about occupation. Because Soviet Occupation failed utterly in the 70's and 80's, you want to rule out trying to solidify Karzai's position and at the very least TRY to limit poppy production? I think you're making blanket statements at best, and meaningless red herring at worst.

I talk about forcing a warlord to cooperate by blowing up some tanks and making him more vulnerable to some rivals, and napalming some poppy fields to delete a few more kgs of heroin on NYC streets, and you retaliate by talking about the futility of Soviet occupation. Explain why Point B means Point A is stupid and requires that I learn some history. In short, fuck off and take a few seconds to analyze what's being said, asshole.