TIME - What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan

[KJ]

Therefore, it is completely misguided to wage war in Afghanistan against terrorism.

Interesting theory.
I have heard the exact opposite said.
What do you base your theory on?

I have heard the motivation for the opposite stand point and I find it rather well thought out and based firmly on the lessons learned in country today.

I will however not repeat it on an open board.
I don´t think it is classified, and you might be able to find the reasoning behind it yourself if you decide to go alittle deeper and learn about the subject..

Welcome to the site BTW.

 

[Seehund]

The initial military objectives was the destruction of terrorist training camps, the capture of al-Qaeda leaders and and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan as articulated by Former President Bush.

We are trapped in the basic category error which is the basis for the conflict: that we have defined the fight against terrorism as a war. Taliban only represent about 10 percent of the insurgents we are fighting. But Taliban is not international terrorists. They use terror as a part of their local fight, and they did give al-Qaeda shelter in the country.

What al-Qaeda is concerned, it is unclear how many active members they have in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But there is a maximum talk about a few thousand, and they play no major role in Afghanistan. On the other hand al-Qaeda is increasingly a global terrorist network with support among young extremists in many places in the world - including in Europe and USA.

It really should be obvious that the "war" is extremely imprecise and resource heavy and altogether obvious irrational way to combat spread of international terrorist networks. One may defend that the Taliban regime in 2002 had to be pushed aside to get al-Qaeda out and the thousands of militants from many countries that passed through al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan before the Taliban regime was overthrown. But many of them returned to western countries with false papers, which in practice make it impossible to find them.

If we were not still caught in Bush's "big war against terror' logic, these points are obvious. As it is, we are messing around with justifications and success criteria and are then finally back on the popularly understood, but deeply misguided reference to global terrorism. New York and London will obviously not be more secure if we conquer a province more or less from the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents. If there is a connection, it is sadly reversed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have multiplied the use of terror weapons like suicide bombings - fortunately most locally. But the recruitment base for international terrorism is obviously increased, not diminished. War creates its own logic, its own inertia and its unique requirements for how to end it. A tragic misunderstanding is' the great war on terrorism "in all circumstances.

 

[KJ]

Yeah ok, that´s what I thought you would say.

Heard that stand point before.
Alot of people on this here site share your POV on the subject as well as most papers.
Esp the cost factor.
None of them have done any time in country.

Have a nice day.

 

[senojekips]

Yeah ok, that´s what I thought you would say.

Heard that stand point before.
Alot of people on this here site share your POV on the subject as well as most papers.
Esp the cost factor.
None of them have done any time in country.

Have a nice day.

A lot of people have never been to prison either, but that does not mean that their not wanting to go there or support those who do, is wrong.

None of which has any bearing on the answer to the question: What happens if we leave Afghanistan?... Which incidentally is a flawed question because it is not a matter of if, but a question of when, presuming that the question is meant to mean "we" as being the coalition forces and not as individuals. Because, believe me, we will leave.

 

[KJ]

Nor would I discuss the inside of prisoncells with an inmate claiming to be a SME on the subject.
In short, if he tells me the walls are gray I´d take his word for it..

 

[senojekips]

I know,... I'm an idiot for even answering your last "answer'.

Read the first line of my answer KJ, and tell me how your rather lame answer has anything to do with my previous answer, having clearly stated,

A lot of people have never been to prison either, but that does not mean that their not wanting to go there or support those who do, is wrong.

 

[Seehund]

Nor would I discuss the inside of prisoncells with an inmate claiming to be a SME on the subject.
In short, if he tells me the walls are gray I´d take his word for it..

Perhaps you should consider that there's the possibility that the inmate is color blind.

I am not a subject matter expert (SME) I have my own opinion and you have yours. I have not been there you are right, but my son in turn has been there three times.

 

[mmarsh]

Yeah ok, that´s what I thought you would say.

Heard that stand point before.
Alot of people on this here site share your POV on the subject as well as most papers.
Esp the cost factor.
None of them have done any time in country.

Have a nice day.

And people that have share your POV tend to ignore one small, inconvenient, detail. That being that in 9 years the master plan still hasn't worked. Your solution to putting out a fire seems to be pouring more gasoline on top of it. Is it no wonder then that things in Afghanistan have gotten decidedly worse?

 

[KJ]

And people that have share your POV tend to ignore one small, inconvenient, detail. That being that in 9 years the master plan still hasn't worked. Your solution to putting out a fire seems to be pouring more gasoline on top of it. Is it no wonder then that things in Afghanistan have gotten decidedly worse?

The original masterplan got shot to **** because resources ment for this fight got diverted to another theater.
IMO a less important one.
8 years ago Afgh was set up for success.
9 years is nothing, these cats measure patience in generations.
So to fight that, we´ll need to stay as long as we need to get the job done.
It´s not like Iraq where you can leave before getting the job done, or Somalia where you can just go home after having a bad afternoon.
This isn´t an MTV war.

As for my solotion, you have obviously not gotten it although I have expressed some of it in this thread and in others on the forum.

//KJ.

 

[mmarsh]

The original masterplan got shot to **** because resources ment for this fight got diverted to another theater.
IMO a less important one.
8 years ago Afgh was set up for success.
9 years is nothing, these cats measure patience in generations.
So to fight that, we´ll need to stay as long as we need to get the job done.
It´s not like Iraq where you can leave before getting the job done, or Somalia where you can just go home after having a bad afternoon.
This isn´t an MTV war.

As for my solotion, you have obviously not gotten it although I have expressed some of it in this thread and in others on the forum.

//KJ.

Your wrong, I read your posts completely, and I am telling your plan to create a stable central government even a non-democratic one will never work. You could be there 500 years it will never work.

It wont work because the Afghans have no concept of what a "country" means. The afghans are tribesmen, and for them, their tribes come first NOT Afghanistan. We had the same mentality in the USA in the 19th century with States rights and the result was a civil war which killed 600,000 people.

The last group to rule Afghanistan as a whole was the Mongol empire. And they only did so by killing everyone who opposed them in a most horrific fashion. The Barbarism of the Monguls made the Taliban look like kittens by comparison. Unless the west is willing to use the same tactics as the mongols we can never win. And we wont use them because whoever did would face charges for warcrimes.

 

[KJ]

Your wrong, I read your posts completely, and I am telling your plan to create a stable central government even a non-democratic one will never work. You could be there 500 years it will never work.

Point is, WE aren´t going to create a stable goverment, we should assist the stable goverment that is created.
The Taleban have been controling the country before we got there.
Thus it CAN be done.
You are still thinking of this as a western democracy.


It wont work because the Afghans have no concept of what a "country" means. The afghans are tribesmen, and for them, their tribes come first NOT Afghanistan. We had the same mentality in the USA in the 19th century with States rights and the result was a civil war which killed 600,000 people.

What you did in the USA has NO bearing whatsoever on the current country.
They have real history and have been fighting invaders off since before your nation had been "discovered"
Tribes comes first, cool. Then lets start banding villages together and make them defend themmselves and eachother.

The last group to rule Afghanistan as a whole was the Mongol empire. And they only did so by killing everyone who opposed them in a most horrific fashion. The Barbarism of the Monguls made the Taliban look like kittens by comparison. Unless the west is willing to use the same tactics as the mongols we can never win. And we wont use them because whoever did would face charges for warcrimes.

Uhmm, the last group to rule Afgh was the Taleban.
They were tough yeah, but they were no mongols.
There is no need to use those tactics, infact I have been advocating against hard handed tactics in just about every post I have made.
Thus your reading/understanding capability can´t be great if you claim to have read my posts.
WE are NOT going to bomb Afgh to submission, period.
We CAN support a goverment who will use other measures then western goverments to control their country.

Embedded.

 

[Atasas]

Gloomy...
Wish somebody would be able to come with intelligent solution...

 

[A Can of Man]

You know what'll be really sobering?
Losing to a bunch of dudes in sandals... again.

 

[Atasas]

You know what'll be really sobering?
Losing to a bunch of dudes in sandals... again.

Ha!:lol:

 

[Micha]

The war in Afghanistan is in many ways “a mission impossible”. There is no military solution to the conflict. It´s about reducing it to a tolerable level of insurgency, that isn’t a strategic threat and can be handled by the Afghan army. And here lies the central point: We should be there so that we can pull out in an orderly manner. It would be irresponsible to withdraw with immediate effect. That would leave the Afghan civilians in a political and security vacuum. The strategy must be reversed and must focus on entrusting security to the Afghans. It requires intense training of Afghan police forces and the Afghan military. This assumes, however, that the rhetoric that we are in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban is put aside. This rhetoric has contributed to that we have been trapped into a logic where the success target is military victories and not civilian reconstruction. The key will be eligible civilian reconstruction.

But in connection with the civil action, there is some intricate questions we need to discuss. NGOs cannot work in the current uncertainty. It would be totally irresponsible. We therefore have to deal with matching military and civilian efforts. Herein lies, inter alia, that a civilian reconstruction must take place with a military presence and ultimately - if necessary - even with military involvement. And most importantly: the Afghanistan conflict can only be resolved through an internal political compromise and, if necessary, contain elements of the Taliban. Afghanistan will not have a Western democracy as we know it. But less can also do it. We can reverse the course now, but ultimately, only the Afghans themselves can ensure lasting peace and progress in Afghanistan.

 

[mmarsh]

KJ

You say that the Afghani have been fighting off invaders for centuries...I agree. But doesn't that further prove my point? What they hell are we doing taking on a people that has successfully fought off every invader for the past several hundred years. Isn't there a lesson just in that alone? To me it the lesson is clear: Dont F**k with the Afghans on their turf. To me that is yet ANOTHER reason to get the hell out as quickly as possible.

You are mistaken about how much control the Taliban had in Afghanistan. In reality the only controlled about 1/2 the country, mainly the urban areas. Look at this map from 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Guerre_en_Afghanistan_(octobre_2001).PNG

The map is in French so I will translate:

The white is the areas the Taliban controlled.
The solid orange area were controlled by the anti-Taliban forces.
The orange shaded areas are those areas where a constant guerrilla war was fought the anti-Taliban factions.

As you can see even the Taliban were not able to fully subjugate the country. The fact is this the Afghani tribes will take no orders neither from foreign invaders nor any Afghani central government in Kabul.

Remember our mission was to destroy the terrorist camps and drive al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan. That mission was accomplished. It was never our goal to attempt to civilize these people. Its when we tried to do that when all our problems started.

 

[senojekips]

Gloomy...
Wish somebody would be able to come with intelligent solution...

They could do that tomorrow, but they would lose face, so it will only happen after they have lost a few more thousand lives and achieved nothing. Only then will they do the same as was done in Vietnam and more recently Iraq.

You know what'll be really sobering?
Losing to a bunch of dudes in sandals... again.

We never learn,... do we.

They can be beaten, but not using our present methods. We are like a blind man trying shoot down the clouds with a shotgun.

We have the "power", but it means absolutely nothing to our target.

 

[Atasas]

They could do that tomorrow, but they would lose face, so it will only happen after they have lost a few more thousand lives and achieved nothing. Only then will they do the same as was done in Vietnam and more recently Iraq.

We never learn,... do we.

They can be beaten, but not using our present methods. We are like a blind man trying shoot down the clouds with a shotgun.

We have the "power", but it means absolutely nothing to our target.

I was meaning intelligent - such, that would not leave whole country in post war era conditions (with load of arms) many in wrong trade (drug) and even possibility to become real terrorism training camp.
I dont care about the face- dont believe it has anything to do with the face

 

[KJ]

They could do that tomorrow, but they would lose face, so it will only happen after they have lost a few more thousand lives and achieved nothing. Only then will they do the same as was done in Vietnam and more recently Iraq.

We never learn,... do we.

They can be beaten, but not using our present methods. We are like a blind man trying shoot down the clouds with a shotgun.

We have the "power", but it means absolutely nothing to our target.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Seno as almost always we are in agrement.
You make a very valid point.

As for COM, I have been on the winning side on a conflict consistingof 50% sandal..And you know that.
It can be done, but not with one hand tied to your bollocks.

Either you want to win or you want to wage war in public.

Welcome to the shitstains of the world.

Mmarsh, you are very welcome to belive what you read in the papers..Since you have no other understanding of the conflict we are discussing.

 

[senojekips]

I was meaning intelligent - such, that would not leave whole country in post war era conditions (with load of arms) many in wrong trade (drug) and even possibility to become real terrorism training camp.
I dont care about the face- dont believe it has anything to do with the face

I think what you meant was that you wanted a convenient solution, I already gave you the intelligent solution, and funnily enough these things virtually never come to a convenient end.

We know that we are not going to be able to ever control the people there. We also know that we are not going to stay there forever, soooo,... we will gradually compromise our aims, slowly lowering our expectations as to what constitutes a victory, until we can just bolt out the back door, leaving a note saying, "You're on your own Jack, we've got more important things to do".

You may not care about face, but our politicians who are in charge DO. It is their number one priority. Far and away ahead of, "winning". Just think of every "argy bargy" you have ever heard between politicians, and tell me what it boiled down to in the end,... saving face. How often do you ever hear a politician say to an opposition member, "Gee, that's a good idea, I wish i had thought of it". No, they tell everyone it will be a dismal failure,.. until they are in power then they introduce it only slightly changed and say the idea was their's in the first place.