Article

2009-09-01 Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2009-09-01 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 Or you could treat it as a pit that you'll have to go into to clean out every few decades, but which won't ever be friendly. It isn't a tidy solution, and the survivors will always be thinking that they won since they "drove out" the Americans last time.

Posted by James">James 2009-09-01 00:43|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2009-09-01 00:43|| Front Page Top

#2 You can't change the nature of a People. So, no democracy ever. You can convince them not to mess with you---but not given the current idiological climate. Maybe, in post Obamid world...

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-09-01 04:11|| 2009-09-01 04:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Steve,
Great article however the same is true of north Pakistan.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2009-09-01 05:42|| 2009-09-01 05:42|| Front Page Top

#4 Good summation.

I am most in favor of glazing/irradiating the most pustulent areas, and repeating as required. A-stan is worth no American troop lives, period. The country is a pest hole, and the people and their 'cultures' are by and large utterly repugnant.

Nation building in a cesspit is insanity. Treat it like a recurring sore, nothing more.

Same for Somalia and the rest.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2009-09-01 06:40|| 2009-09-01 06:40|| Front Page Top

#5 I firmly agree Whiskey Mike. Phase-II of your 'get out, mind our own business and stay at home' scenario, the following Course of Actions (COA) would follow:

COA-A. If you create a situation for the US akin to PamAm 103, 9/11, etc, we will without warning or further discussion, END your civilization and those of your 'immediate 'downwind' neighbors.

COA-B. If something dreadful happens to Israel, or anyone else we so designate either specifically or implied, COA-A shall apply.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-09-01 07:40|| 2009-09-01 07:40|| Front Page Top

#6 The Obama Administration is blaming Bush for the current problems in A'stan - because he neglected that part of the war by his wrongful invasion of Iraq.

Eventually we may come to understand what I have been saying since we first invaded Iraq - we did so because we 'could' (we had a legal excuse) and it was a better place than A'stan to conduct a war against the Islamofascists. It allowed us to, effectively, declare victory in A'stan and get out. It's not exactly the kind of thing a government can openly state but I believe it is yet one more example of where America's 'elite' mis-underestimated GW Bush.
Sadly, we will probably repeat Vietnam in A'stan. I am not confident we have the means to conduct a winning campaign in that logistical nightmare of a place and I am certain we don't have the will to do it.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-09-01 08:42|| 2009-09-01 08:42|| Front Page Top

#7 One key issue is whether, indeed, Obama has the will to stay. Another is whether he has the intelligence to listen to the smart people who are there or have been there and develop a new strategy. That's what Bush had to do in 2006 and to his credit, he did it.

Dan Riehl (no link, sorry) makes that point this morning as well. Obama needs political room to manuever at home and dearly wants to ram a liberal, progressive progressive agenda through the Congress. That isn't going well (understatement) and he can ill-afford to alienate the Kos Kiddies further by hanging tough in A'stan.

He might draw to pull out real soon and "Blame Bush". If he does, A'stan becomes ripe for plucking by the Taliban -- it's unlikely Obama would keep Special Forces in-country and B-2 bombers on-call. That in turn lets the TTP and al-Qaeda have the safe haven they need for future operations.

And that takes us back to Spring, 2001.

Posted by Steve White 2009-09-01 10:16|| 2009-09-01 10:16|| Front Page Top

#8 Whiskey Mike: I disagree. Iraq firmly established a principle, that every rotten system the US tried to preserve, out of "cultural sensitivity" was a failure, and every system we introduced from scratch had a better than average chance of success.

But we discarded this discovery with Afghanistan, trying to make an inherently repugnant, archaic, and most of all, inefficient form of what passes for government, work.

Instead, the very first thing we should have done is take every child from a peaceful part of the country, and put them in (US military government) state run boarding schools, with a western curriculum.

Then take every educated Afghan we could find and send them to school to learn how to run a modern government. Then, because of the tiny national wage, we could have literally hired every unemployed adult male in the country for massive government projects.

Their wages would have been about $1B every year, because the wages are so incredibly low, and entire towns and cities could have been rebuilt, along with water projects, farm restoration, etc.

The country would have been led by an imposed, MacArthur constitution written for them, and to hell with Sharia law and tribal government.

Any Taliban or al-Qaeda caught in mischief would be hung by the neck with little formality, the passable parts of the border would be heavily fortified by US forces, and anyone caught crossing anywhere else would be shot on sight.

Yes, it would be a US military dictatorship for about a decade, but when it was over, those left in power would know how to run a government, there would be a young generation capable of modernizing their nation and protecting its security, and their economy would be growing at a tremendous clip.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-09-01 10:17|| 2009-09-01 10:17|| Front Page Top

#9 Sweeping through a country killing all the terrorists you can find *is* nation-building.

It certainly makes it a better place.

Posted by Oldcat 2009-09-01 11:41|| 2009-09-01 11:41|| Front Page Top

#10 Yeah, but it's like raking leaves, until you cut the tree down, it's a never ending job.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-09-01 13:43|| 2009-09-01 13:43|| Front Page Top

#11 Afghanistan cannot be 'won' so long the west continues to define victory by WWII standards. A success of ridiculous proportions if there ever was one.

In my opinion, success is long attained. Victory is already secured. The only question now is how to not lose all the ground that was fought for. How to do that without imposing some western type standards or institutions is something I can't answer.

It seems to me that we will eventually have to get the Afghans on board with some westernizing or warloards will turn it right back to what it was.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-09-01 14:16|| 2009-09-01 14:16|| Front Page Top

#12 it would be a US military dictatorship for about a decade, but when it was over... Your estimate seems far too optimistic. It would take 2 full generations of this kind of dictatorship/colonization to turn a pesthole like Afghanistan around, and neither the USA nor any other power has the stomach to do that.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-09-01 23:34|| 2009-09-01 23:34|| Front Page Top

23:40 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:34 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:23 Grunter
23:22 Silentbrick
23:18 Cornsilk Blondie
23:01 Jumbo Slinerong5015
22:40 gorb
22:38 Omiting the Younger9947
22:35 Iblis
22:32 Iblis
22:32 Frank G
22:24 gorb
22:12 Iblis
22:07 Frank G
22:06 gorb
22:05 Skidmark
22:02 trailing wife
21:58 gorb
21:55 gorb
21:54 abu do you love
21:54 DMFD
21:46 Skunky Glins 5***
21:38 Barbara Skolaut
21:32 Skunky Glins 5***