The Afghanistan question

[ray245]

While it is agreed by most people that there is no point in staying in Iraq, people are still divided over the Afghanistan issue. For people that is a part of NATO and the US, is there any point in bringing in more troops into Afghanistan?

Should the US pull out troops from Afghanistan, or should they reinforce that area?

[Sarevok]

If Americans pull out Afganistan could reset back to 1990s taliban era. I don't think it would be honest to piss away all the gains made at cost of human lives just to make a political point about how Bush fucked up what should have been an easy campaign of the world vs taliban savages.

[Shroom Man 777]

But can you actually turn a horrible craphole like A-stan into a decent and worthwhile place? A lot of people have tried it, and with Afghanistan, they've all failed. How will America's intervention of A-stan and Iraq end differently from the old European attempts at bringing civilization to uncivilized places? Their attempts didn't really end well either.

[Sky Captain]

If NATO now pull forces out of Afghanistan I suspect it`s likely Taliban again gains power and situation becomes more or less the same it was before invasion making all the money and effort spent in stabilizing Afghanistan worthless. Best thing to do is to help Afghan government until it can fully control situation and then gradually pull out troops.

[Shroom Man 777]

Thing is, it's a long-term solution that'll last for decades with NO guaranteed success. The public won't like it, the politicians won't like it, and the generals won't like it, and the soldiers won't like it. Hell, the Afghans themselves might not like it either.

[Coyote]

Well, we also have to invest in things that show the Afghans that the path away from the Taliban offers better things. The Bush administration didn't want to invest in that kind of stuff; only military solutions. Hopefully, Obama will see the wisdom in more than just force and invest in things that will also help boost their infrastructure & education.

But if we just pull out now, not only will the Taliban be back, but they'll also have a firm grip on Pakistan, too. The whole thing will have been a net gain for them; two states instead of one. And one of them will be nuclear-capable.

[irishmick79]

It would be an incredibly dishonest and insulting gesture if the Americans pulled out now. We're talking about almost 30 years of direct and indrect American involvement in Afghan affairs, here. Like it or not, the US government has established a long history in to Afghanistan, and the US would be rightly condemned for cynically catering to its own set of narrow interests in Afghanistan if they pulled out.

[Sarevok]

But can you actually turn a horrible craphole like A-stan into a decent and worthwhile place? A lot of people have tried it, and with Afghanistan, they've all failed. How will America's intervention of A-stan and Iraq end differently from the old European attempts at bringing civilization to uncivilized places? Their attempts didn't really end well either.

Europe too was once a backward land dominated by religious extremists. They outgrew it. Why can't Afganistan do the same ? I am not saying that Afghanistan realistically has any chance of being considered a livable place in foreseeable future. But it is not a good idea to think in black and white. Afghanistan is far from a stable and prosperous country. Yet it is still better than the rock bottom it once hit under the Taliban. A somewhat more tolerable living condition is better than reverting back to a worse hell don't you think ?

[Coyote]

The problem is, the neighborhood in general is pretty rough. Not just the politics but the hardscrabble living. There's oil in a few places, I think some natural gas, but much of the region seems fairly resource-poor. Even the usual fallback of resourse-poor areas, agriculture, will be hard pressed just to feed their own populations-- and I hate to say it, but if peace were to break out in the region, there'd be a population boom, and they'd have to divert most of their home-grown chow to their own; there'd be little left for export. Tourism can only go so far.

That leaves education, which will require a lot of political & social shifting in the area that will be a long, long time to come.

Steady regional investment by a bunch of altruistic powers with no real subversive agendas is what's needed. Good luck finding that. Until that day comes, though, it is in our best interests to remain until the situation is self-sustainingly stable, at least.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Europe too was once a backward land dominated by religious extremists. They outgrew it. Why can't Afganistan do the same ? I am not saying that Afghanistan realistically has any chance of being considered a livable place in foreseeable future. But it is not a good idea to think in black and white. Afghanistan is far from a stable and prosperous country. Yet it is still better than the rock bottom it once hit under the Taliban. A somewhat more tolerable living condition is better than reverting back to a worse hell don't you think ?

Afghanistan has rarely experienced very long lasting civilization, and also, you have Pakistan down the border that regards Afghanistan its fucking bitch. Then throw in the fact that the Pakistanis can't even maintain their house in order and have minimal control over state apparatus, it's going to be remarkably hard to set things right. Pakistan continues to be a major thorn in any policy there, and talking to the Pakistani government seems to be a bloody waste of time. Right now, unless major powers collectively agree to invest in Afghanistan, nothing will change in Afghanistan, and not for a generation. It's the same reason why Africa remains a shithole for a century over.

[Shroom Man 777]

Europe too was once a backward land dominated by religious extremists. They outgrew it.

After half a thousand years of murdering each other and slitting their children's throats in their sleep. They outgrew it and became somewhat decent places, but they did so by themselves and without an outside force coming in and 'doing it for them'. If an outside force came in and tried to civilize them in, what, a couple of years, then there would be no difference and they would go back to drowning women and children in boiling water. The same applies to Afghanistan. Unless the foreign commitment to that place lasts for several generations, then there will be no change.

It'll take a long time.

[Sarevok]

I agree with Shrooms and Fingolfin. The decision lies with the occupying countrys voters. They alone decide whether Afganistan gets the aid it needs or it should continue to languish. So the question becomes how do you sell the idea of "nation building" after 8 years of what has transpired under Bush.

[Coyote]

The good news is, Bush set the bar so low that just showing up with some Chinese take-out will be a 100% improvement. Okay, I'm exaggerating... but not by much. The people in Afghanistan already dislike the Taliban because they're such assholes. We have to be 'less assholish' at worst, or downright helpful and fun at best. The desire to go from the Taliban exists already; they're just not entirely sure they want to also go to us.

If we make them comfortable and happy with us, and we build trust and show that we respect them, it'll happen on its own. The big problems with getting Afgahanistan to come around really lie more with American attitudes and techniques than with anything on the ground over there.

[The Spartan]

But can you actually turn a horrible craphole like A-stan into a decent and worthwhile place?

Possibly

The problems are numerous and deeply rooted, but there are ways to do so.

[Shroom Man 777]

The opium problem really isn't a problem for the Afghans themselves. They're just selling something that grows out of the soil. The only reason why it's a problem is that the stuff ends up getting snorted and sniffed by crackheads in America and stuff.

The problem is ingrained in the culture of these people, the same culture and beliefs that they've been practicing for hundreds of years, except the only difference between now and then is that now they've got Kalashnikovs to kill people easier.

It'll take an inconceivable amount of time before intervention can turn these countries into something totally different from the stereotypical shitholes they are now. The Europeans had to go and colonize their countries for hundreds of years and today, those countries are still very much problematic.

You can't do it with just military prowess and you'll be lucky to achieve remaking these nations in a century.

[Medic]

The Taliban isn't even popular amongst Afghani's and if we are going to lose that war it would be because we quit, not because it isn't winnable. Moreover, we've got the doctrine (we revised our COIN [counter insurgency] doctrine at the end of 2006), because of the improving conditions in Iraq we can free up a few more BCT's for Afghanistan and over time, advisers will build up the Afghan National Army (ANA) to a point resembling Iraq's right now. As in, they may require some logistical support and can always be improved by American assets in close-air support and indirect fires, but they essentially train and fight of their own volition and constitution.

Frankly, zeroing in on the fact that the security institutions we are building in Iraq and Afghanistan are not yet perfect or complete plainly ignores the fact that an American BCT can be in one place, at one time, or in language suitable to this context, can control one district or province at a time. However rough around the edges these institutions first efforts may be, the Afghan battalions you have in dozens of locations beats the superb American forces you don't have or can't commit due to logistical or political constraints.

Iraq at it's lowest and Afghanistan now are not irredeemable. They are not nations-in-arms, lockstep against American occupiers. Instead there have been certain elements (the Maddi Army, Sunni Insurgents or the Taliban) avowedly against us, they enjoyed some minority support in these nations but that's it and whomever dared speak out or support the Coalition they would assassinate by night. In both situations there is a dearth of indigenous security forces and American forces, alone, are consequently inadequate. In both too there were the teething problems of learning the culture, getting enough translators and reconstruction funds in the hands of commanders on-the-ground and learning the lessons unique to the country; tactical minutiae, geography, etc.. All of the above can be described as sort of 1st and 2nd phases.

We're past that. Waaay past that. We're past just showing an Iraqi volunteer how to load, clear and fire a weapon -- now their own NCO's teach their own guys that and more. In both countries. We revised our COIN doctrine by the end of 2006, those lessons have been applied ever since and in greater detail, we've surged once in Iraq and look now to apply the same stop-gap in Afghanistan, to give time for them to stand up their own security forces. That's significant because it's only in a dearth of security that small numbers of insurgents enjoying only minority-support amongst the population can stonewall any and all progress on the ground. Once ANA boots are on the ground, once a store merchant on a street corner doesn't have to worry about getting his life threatened in the middle of the night by the Taliban and can give information to the Coalition, then we can push them back and start seriously talking about political progress, reconstruction and withdrawal, even keeping in mind we need to temper our expectations. That ball is rolling now and the only guaranteed way to lose is the Commander-in-Chief or Congress demanding withdrawal before we see the fruits of our labor.

Those fruits will have all the trappings of Middle Eastern states -- some Sharia law, discrimination against minorities we might find abhorrent, and a conception of democracy likely at-odds with typical Western standards -- and that's alright. Don't confuse the Bush administration's failure-to-deliver-the-promised-world (WMD, they will pay for their own reconstruction from day one, greeted as liberators, cheaper gas and a new car) as either a realistic set of goals or as a barometer for success after major adjustments have been made.

[Guardsman Bass]

SPC Brungardt has it right, and I think it's important to emphasize the change in counter-insurgency doctrine. After 2006, we slowly started changing more to a "protect the population" goal for the troops, as opposed to what we'd been doing earlier. That should help in Afghanistan if we don't fuck it up, since security is usually the overriding concern for the Afghans; they hate the Taliban, but see them as brutal but honest, and prefer that to nothing but chaos and corruption if that's the alternative.

[Ender]

How on earth is this even a question? Who is divided on Afghanistan? The bad guys are still running around gaining strength there - the fight isn't finished. Of course we need to go in and take them out. And we haven't been able to do it with split commitments, so we need to refocus.