TIME - What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan

I'll tell you what will happen, and I'd put my next pension payment on it. Unless of course we kill every man woman and child before we go.

Afghanistan will go straight back to where it was just after they chased the Russkies back home across the border, the warlords/Taliban will take over again, they will have an even greater following and they will be even more convinced that they are right and we infidels are wrong.

In the past 300 years several world powers have tried to change the way of the Ghans, they all failed miserably and went home with their tail between their legs.

We just haven't got the courage of our convictions, to either beat or bribe them into submission. Warfare is a way of life among the majority of the population outside the cities and those within the cities envy those who are not. When their honour is at stake, they would rather fight than any other thing and their honour as warriors is always at stake.
 
all I am going to say Can is on best of behavior!
Regarding such pools- they are flawed by its concept in A-stan as you dont see votes from villagers/herders/women- big population; you dont/cant get to run such pools in really hostile areas- the biggest concentration of population (apart from towns). I mean compare maps of incidents/insurgency and population concentration.
 
Atasas said:
all I am going to say Can is on best of behavior!
Regarding such pools- they are flawed by its concept in A-stan as you dont see votes from villagers/herders/women- big population; you dont/cant get to run such pools in really hostile areas- the biggest concentration of population (apart from towns). I mean compare maps of incidents/insurgency and population concentration.
Click to expand...

You know that The first casualty of War is Truth.

The Asia Foundation is based in Kabul, so obviously you must be critical when you read this. You may also be critical when you read a negative article about A-stan in your newspaper. What is real information and what is disinformation?

Ultimately it depends on what you think yourself.
Or maybe what someone wants you to believe. The possibility exists.:wink:
 
When reading this type of material, it would be wise to take it with a grain of salt until it is reviewed taking the country's past history and culture into account. The very idea of taking a poll, let alone believing it, is foreign to them, as they real;ise that it has no effect whatsoever on reality.

Too many outsiders use "western" values when they write about a country that is still ruled by warlords and medieval tribal affiliations regardless of what "government" is in place. This is a country where 99% of the male population recognises the power of the gun, over that of the ballot box. This applies to all things from interpersonal relationships in the remotest mud hut villages, right through to the governance of the country.

Every male person's first allegiance is to themselves as individuals, then to (male) family, clan and tribe, in that order. They are only ever influenced at all, by what suits them at the particular moment, and that can change in a heartbeat without the slightest feelings of remorse or betrayal, it is the nature of the beast, it is how things are done in their culture, and have been done for hundreds of years, probably much, much longer.

The one thing that will unite them, is a common enemy and we have made ourselves that enemy. They will form allegiances to fight us and the moment we are gone those allegiances will disolve and be reformed with whoever is needed to face their next problem.

They are the ultimate individualists.
 
Last edited:
I agree that reality in Afghanistan is that most of the population is living in a relationship to 'the strong men'. It may be the village leader, Mullah or drug lord. These people are again dependent on others who are facing them and the top of the pyramid are the warlords. It’s these men who decide whether there should be peace or war in Afghanistan. So the question is not whether it’s necessary to create alliances with those who sit on power. The question is rather whether alliances are pointing forward, i.e. towards a more peaceful Afghanistan, where economic and social development over time of shifting power from the men of violence and drug barons with political actors that are embedded in wider social and religious institutions, and business men who can create wealth through a market economy.
 
Micha said:
---snip--- The question is rather whether alliances are pointing forward, i.e. towards a more peaceful Afghanistan, where economic and social development over time of shifting power from the men of violence and drug barons with political actors that are embedded in wider social and religious institutions, and business men who can create wealth through a market economy.
Click to expand...
The answer to that is ridiculously easy, "these alliances are pointing very firmly towards any monetary or security gain for the individual concerned at that moment in time". There is no alliance, loyalty or allegiance, with, or to any person within the Western understanding of the word, except for immediate gain, not for the greater good of the country, but for the singular person concerned.

Their view is, "If you offer me money or power, then you are my ally,... the instant that you stop providing that benefit or someone (anyone) offers me a greater benefit you are no longer my ally, and I will gladly offer my services against you".

Businesses creating wealth mean absolutely nothing to those who do not gain direct and immediate benefit from that business. This means 99.99% of the remaining population.

The rural poor do not give a fig if those in the cities become wealthy and have a peaceful life, except that they offer a new target to be stripped of that wealth by any means possible. This usually amounts to no more than a few extra persons that the remainder of the population can extort and murder for money and power.

The very concept of Democracy is an anathema to them. This has been bought about over centuries by those in power merely using those below them as a means to gain further power and riches. Peace is likewise despised, as it would try to stop the poor from murdering the rich and thus finding a way out of their poverty It would also emasculate the male population who believe that it is not only the easiest way of gaining power and riches, but it is also the honourable thing for any man to do.

Afghanistan is a modern day "Wild West" where every male person old enough to carry a gun is a potential Billy the Kid who will at the first opportunity, gladly kill any person who stands between him and that which he desires. If it is possible, he will kill you, or betray you to others who will kill you immediately, otherwise he will wait until an opportunity presents itself.

To say that the Afghans are "fickle" is possibly the world's greatest understatement.
 
Last edited:
Micha said:
All right then.
A-stan is lost forever or do you have a solution?
Click to expand...
I never said that it is lost forever,... but I do think that it is lost for so long as we take our present course of action. Not only that, we are also doing a great disservice to ourselves. Do you remember how the remainder of the world viewed Russia when they tried a similar course of action, and more to the point when they eventually went home after costing them billions, maybe trillions of roubles and suffering inumerable dead, definitely no better off than before they invaded?

If you read the subject of the thread, it asks, "What happens when we leave Afghanistan", and that is what I have answered, giving my reasons why I feel that my answer is right.

I do have a possible answer, I don't know whether it is the "solution" to every problem, but it would certainly solve many of our problems related to Afghanistan, but this is not the thread to answer it.

At the moment, I feel that "our" (the coalition's) singular biggest mistake is that we make judgements on the people and the events in Afghanistan without taking into account, either their culture or the reasons why their culture is nothing like our own. In effect we are trying to enforce a democratic system into a country whose culture is really based on anarchy. What makes it worse is the fact that their anarchic system is seen by the majority who live there, to be the only practical way forward for them as individuals.

Looking at it simply, it all comes down to the fact that you cannot enforce democracy in a country where it is neither wanted nor understood.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
I never said that it is lost forever,... but I do think that it is lost for so long as we take our present course of action. Not only that, we are also doing a great disservice to ourselves. Do you remember how the remainder of the world viewed Russia when they tried a similar course of action, and more to the point when they eventually went home after costing them billions, maybe trillions of roubles and suffering inumerable dead, definitely no better off than before they invaded?

If you read the subject of the thread, it asks, "What happens when we leave Afghanistan", and that is what I have answered, giving my reasons why I feel that my answer is right.

I do have a possible answer, I don't know whether it is the "solution" to every problem, but it would certainly solve many of our problems related to Afghanistan, but this is not the thread to answer it.

At the moment, I feel that "our" (the coalition's) singular biggest mistake is that we make judgements on the people and the events in Afghanistan without taking into account, either their culture or the reasons why their culture is nothing like our own. In effect we are trying to enforce a democratic system into a country whose culture is really based on anarchy. What makes it worse is the fact that their anarchic system is seen by the majority who live there, to be the only practical way forward for them as individuals.

Looking at it simply, it all comes down to the fact that you cannot enforce democracy in a country where it is neither wanted nor understood.
Click to expand...
I could not have said better! :salute:
 
Thanks senojekips for an informative reply. There are some good points in your answer.

The problem with the debate on Afghanistan here in Denmark is that it is not very solution oriented. As a Danish humorist once said: Everyone talks about the weather - but nobody does anything about it.
 
What nobody seems to notice is the fact that there is no '?' in the title. There is no doubt what will happen when the Coalition Forces leave; this is not a question looking for an answer, it's a fact we'd better learn to deal with.

Problem is we have no way of righting the wrongs down there.
Not anymore.
We f'ed up at the day when we decided to instantly set up a democratic government in Afghanistan. That's what happens when you impose democracy on a people that's just not ready for it. What you deserve is what you get. When you try to install a democratic government before dealing with corruption, lack of education and lack of appreciation for human rights, that's what you get: a corrupt government that consists of dumbf***s who don't give a $#!t about human rights. Democracy worked for us. But remember what our countries went through until it did. Centuries of struggle and setbacks were needed to create the societies that now exist in our western democracies. I don't mean to be arrogant or mean, but the social structures in Afghanistan didn't change very much since the Middle Ages, the whole 'Enlightenment' thing we had here in Europe didn't have that much of an impact on the middle and far east.
We (and more so the Afghans) would have been better off with a military government than with a guy who will simply go back to Kandahar and become a big warlord when the **** hits the fan...
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
I never said that it is lost forever,... but I do think that it is lost for so long as we take our present course of action. Not only that, we are also doing a great disservice to ourselves. Do you remember how the remainder of the world viewed Russia when they tried a similar course of action, and more to the point when they eventually went home after costing them billions, maybe trillions of roubles and suffering inumerable dead, definitely no better off than before they invaded?

If you read the subject of the thread, it asks, "What happens when we leave Afghanistan", and that is what I have answered, giving my reasons why I feel that my answer is right.

I do have a possible answer, I don't know whether it is the "solution" to every problem, but it would certainly solve many of our problems related to Afghanistan, but this is not the thread to answer it.

At the moment, I feel that "our" (the coalition's) singular biggest mistake is that we make judgements on the people and the events in Afghanistan without taking into account, either their culture or the reasons why their culture is nothing like our own. In effect we are trying to enforce a democratic system into a country whose culture is really based on anarchy. What makes it worse is the fact that their anarchic system is seen by the majority who live there, to be the only practical way forward for them as individuals.

Looking at it simply, it all comes down to the fact that you cannot enforce democracy in a country where it is neither wanted nor understood.
Click to expand...


What IS our present course of action?
I would love to see you detail that.
The first year I had in country did open my eyes alot on this poin but you may have it all figured out?

No one said anything about democracy.
We need to end the fighting so we can leave the Afghanis with a country they can either destroy or make better themselves.
It should be their choice.
Therefor we can not hand it back as long as we know the Talis are the most ruthless and the strongest fighting force around.
Thus we have to back someone that preferably isn´t Tali.

What we need to do further is to band villages together to resist should the Talis come knocking on their door in the middle of the night.
This we see more and more.
Leadership out of Kabul, not so much.

Simple fact is, we are currently backing a dead horse on the strategic level, thus we will have to look for a sullotion on the tactical level making it our strategic level.

Should we get our guys out. Yes.
Should we tuck tail and run, not only no but hell no.
This can still get won.

And again.
We will not see a McDonalds eating democracy in Afgh. Ever.
But we can see a leadership that is strong enough to keep the rest of the country at bay.

KJ.
 
KJ said:
What IS our present course of action?
I would love to see you detail that. The first year I had in country did open my eyes alot on this poin but you may have it all figured out?
Click to expand...
One doesn't have to know evey micro detail of what is going on to make a judgement as to whether it is working or not. It's like a football game, the moves don't count, the only thing that does count is whether your strategy will lead to winning or not, and we are not winning. We only control that land that we stand on at any given moment, the instant we move it reverts to the opposition. It's Vietnam all over again.
No one said anything about democracy.
Click to expand...
What you have to remember is that the military are not there for any other purpose than to get a desired political outcome, and one of those desires is to democratise the country.
We need to end the fighting so we can leave the Afghanis with a country they can either destroy or make better themselves.
It should be their choice.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what i am saying the people in this area of the world have been fighting among themselves for longer than we have recorded their history. there is only one thing that unites them, and that is a common enemy, and at this moment, we are that common enemy . When we leave,... and we will leave, just as we have scuttled out of Iraq, with our heads held high for the cameras, but out tails tucked very firmly between our legs. The only persons that think we have achieved anything of great benefit, is ourselves.
Therefor we can not hand it back as long as we know the Talis are the most ruthless and the strongest fighting force around.
Thus we have to back someone that preferably isn´t Tali.

What we need to do further is to band villages together to resist should the Talis come knocking on their door in the middle of the night.
This we see more and more.
Click to expand...
I wish you well, because these villages are the source of most of the Taliban
Leadership out of Kabul, not so much.

Simple fact is, we are currently backing a dead horse on the strategic level, thus we will have to look for a sullotion on the tactical level

making it our strategic level.

Should we get our guys out. Yes.
Should we tuck tail and run, not only no but hell no.
Click to expand...
Once again. you are 100% correct,.. we shouldn't,... but believe me, we will, because if we don't, we will have to resign ourselves to being there forever.
This can still get won.

And again.
We will not see a McDonalds eating democracy in Afgh. Ever.
But we can see a leadership that is strong enough to keep the rest of the country at bay.

KJ.
Click to expand...
I won't hold my breath waiting for a solution that will be of any benefit to the Coalition, if there is a solution it will be solely for the benefit of a very few of the Afghan heirarchy and this will cause more friction. The way I see it,... what you wish for is someone to hold the lid on the volcano, and it can be done, but it will be a constant struggle and it will erupt regularly. Whoever this person is, he will have to be an Afghan.

Whatever happens, the status quo will prevail once we go. Just as if we had never even been there.
 
Last edited:
KJ

"But we can see a leadership that is strong enough to keep the rest of the country at bay".


But you see thats the entire problem. The local tribes do not want a centralized leadership. Afghanistan has always had a decentralized power-base, even when the Taliban were in charge.

The fact of the matter is that these villages don't want anyone in Kabul giving them orders when it be democratic (USA), tyrannical (Russian backed Communist), or theological (the Taliban).

And for that Senojekips is right, we need to go. We are not going to beat the Taliban only the Afghans can.

Our best course of action (in my opinion)

1. Pull out.
2. Arm the local forces still willing to fight the Taliban
3. Conduct Air strikes and other hit-and-run raids the moment the taliban do decide to pop their heads out of their cave.
4. And ruthlessly punish those people in the world helping the Taliban (like rogue elements of the ISI).
 
The war has not weakened the Taliban or created support among civilians, although military action has been stepped up quite considerably. We are increasingly a part of the problem more than the solution. Therefore we can not have stability unless we get the troops out and have created an internal Afghan political compromise. To the extent that we have an international terrorist threat, has little to do with Afghanistan. The various terrorist groups can not be put in quarantine to Afghanistan. Therefore, it is completely misguided to wage war in Afghanistan against terrorism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top