Well, there was an election held, and lo and behold voting irregularities are being claimed widely.

Women and men must vote separately, and for some reason most female voting stations were never opened.

Children were taped using "valid" voting cards and casting votes.

Voting judges were taped stuffing ballot boxes.

Sheaves of ballots were shown to be pre-marked with identical markings for the incumbent, Karzai(sp).

Does it matter whether we root out the terrorist cells and Taliban strongholds if the country is going to remain steeped in so much corruption?

I think we should seriously consider leaving Afghanistan. I no longer see a purpose for us to lose lives for that country. I've been closely following the Marines offensive and it becomes very apparent that the remote villages they operate in and around could really care less about them being there.

The Taliban are an exceptionally experienced fighting force that uses the same type of tactics in a firefight that our forces use, establish a base of fire and maneuver on the flanks. These guys are not a bunch of undisciplined ragheads, they are highly disciplined well trained troops fighting on their own ground.

The election just adds to the whole realization of the corporate ownership of our own country.

I am very closely in agreement with Rovers sentiment on this issue. since i cannot add eloquence to said statement i will stand in solidarity instead.

Frankly we are not willing to do what it takes to really end the Taliban there, so we should leave. No reason to lose Americans by making them fight with their hands tied.

There is the issue of Pakistan. Damn if only they were not right next door with a shakey government just itching to be flicked off that pile of nukes.

Otherwise....who cares! That region is not hard wired for democracy. Its hardwired for dictatorship. They are used to a tribal leader or cleric making all the tough decisions and all decisions are final. Any attempt at democracy is going to be half assed. Best to just leave em be and pound them into the dirt in the event they decide to export more of their brand of jihad. I would even argue in favor of closing our embassy there. That nation has NOTHING to offer.

I'm sure not sure we can use the 'Pakistan' card on this one Lumm. I don't think we really know what we are doing in Afghanistan, now the anger of 9/11 has worn off, nor is there a concrete plan, or ample resources, to do much of anything at all.

This failure is the failure of Western intervention. Saying the region is not democratic may be true to an extent, but again I'm not sure we can use it as an excuse for our failure. Remember, a majority of the Pashtu tribes, for example, are actually democratic. But what have we dangled infront of them, for them to transport their tribal democracy to a centralised, state dominated democracy? In their vision, we give them war instead of a new government. We dismantle their main source of income when we try and change their pro-drug economy. We cause cross-border conflict when we try and root out terrorist cells around passes into the Punjab. We have singularly failed to offer them any inticement into our 'visionary democracy'.

As I tried to argue with Gulor in a thread some months back, this was due to our initial hapless military campaign that failued in its achievements at the beginning by transfering resources and attention to a different campaign (ie Iraq), it is the reflection of British strategy in the revolutionary war. A failure to achieve success in the opening stages and a division of resources in the latter stages has made overall strategic and political success now beyond our grasp.

Well, there is the fact that we also played the Public demands Action/Blood/Retribution card. Mainly we just wanted to flatten them, but there was no concept that it was going to become the occupation or nation building exercise with no exit strategy that it evolved into. Really no surprise there. Now it will just come down to how long do we want to hold out before it is deemed acceptable to tuck tail and slink off to lick our wounds. Also there is a general nonacceptance of just leaving the place a shambles without at first trying to get the place to stand on its own for the sake of the common people who got dealt an already bad hand just by being born an Afghan. Leaving the place a wreck will, referencing the popular theory of Winning the Hearts and Minds, will just breed more terrorists. Gone are the days of wholesale slaughter when you left no one to be spiteful. Even then, nothing short of an asteroid hitting that region would be required to squash every roach in that place. In the end, people will eventually have to reason that 9/11 was just an extravagant crime and you don't stamp crime out by attempting to level the whole neighborhood where the criminals families live and then later buddy up to them, no matter how good it feels to get payback.

As I tried to argue with Gulor in a thread some months back, this was due to our initial hapless military campaign that failued in its achievements at the beginning by transfering resources and attention to a different campaign (ie Iraq), it is the reflection of British strategy in the revolutionary war. A failure to achieve success in the opening stages and a division of resources in the latter stages has made overall strategic and political success now beyond our grasp.

And as I pointed out then, reducing the troop levels by only 2500 men for a few months was *not* the reason the western strategy hasn't worked in Afghanistan. Any number of additional troops would have made no real difference if they weren't allowed to pursue into Pakistan. Rather, they would simply have provided even more targets of opportunity for the militants to ambush. The notion that 2500 troops made all the difference simply doesn't hold up when you look at the history of troop deployments. We were actually much more effective in the early beginning when we had minimal presence in the country and let the Northern Alliance do the ground fighting with our air support.

The reasons things did not develop as hoped are many but include lackluster follow through (by all the western governments) on the pledges of aid they made to establish the Afghan government and rebuild its infrastructure, the complete lack of cooperation early on from Pakistan in curbing cross border raids and reigning in the Pakistani based militants, and most importantly the utter failure to train, vett, pay and equip the Afghan army properly to enable it to police its own country.

From our perspective, a non-Taliban government of any sort (even a corrupt one) is preferable to the country being run by religious fanatics with an axe to grind with everyone not of their particular sect.

The reasons things did not develop as hoped are many but include lackluster follow through (by all the western governments) on the pledges of aid they made to establish the Afghan government and rebuild its infrastructure, the complete lack of cooperation early on from Pakistan in curbing cross border raids and reigning in the Pakistani based militants, and most importantly the utter failure to train, vett, pay and equip the Afghan army properly to enable it to police its own country.

From our perspective, a non-Taliban government of any sort (even a corrupt one) is preferable to the country being run by religious fanatics with an axe to grind with everyone not of their particular sect.


I agree that the troop strength was not necessarily that big of a factor, but the change in focus to Iraq of our strategists and intelligence agencies played a huge role, IMO.

And, our propping up of the General in Pakistan would have led to the same outcome as our support for the Shah in Iran, I believe; fortunately, he was more intelligent than the Shah and allowed the citizens the opportunity to vote him out of office. To prop up Karzai may seem in the short term preferable to the Taliban or religious leadership, but it is simply setting the stage for further anti-American/West sentiments and protests.

Interestingly, we have yet to find a leader in that region to support that was not connected to corruption, including Bhutto. Our continued pursuit of policies that are based in Western democratic principles rather than seeking to understand the culture and traditions and 'mindset' of the people of the region and adapt our policies to them is a program for defeat.

Perhaps what we deem as "corruption" is just "politics as usual" for that region?

Just that region?

As I said in reply to you Gulor, oh hell I'll just quote it (don't judge me for quoting myself!):

'Firstly - reducing troop deployment in the early stages of what, by 2005, was quite clearly a conflict of gruelling occupational attrition, is a strategic mistake. It notifies the enemy that there is a reduction of committment and perhaps even determination (which, we know with hindsight, was the case as Afghanistan faded into the shadows and the Iraq war was propelled to the forefront of not just the people's attention, but policy-makers and military resources). It doesn't matter if it was by 2,500, as you stated, or by 25,000. Admitting that these numbers were supposed, by 2005, to be adequately filled in by allies is not terribly clever strategic sense. The hap-hazard and half-hearted quota's delivered by allies (of the US, Canada and Britain - as the largest contributors) even in 2001-3 were largely inadequate. To not have any official and timely take-over, as in Iraq, of occupying forces, but to leave it to flawed diplomatic wrangling *after* US troops had left is, again, bad strategy.

Secondly - the Iraqi War symbolises less a siphoning of US troops from Afghanistan, but more a prevention of US troopd deployment on a scale that would greatly contribute to strategic success. What do I mean? With 100,000 US troops and billions of US dollars pouring into Iraq, the same could not be done with Afghanistan. Had the Iraq front not been opened, it is difficult not to conclude that the same kind of commitment would have been poured into the Afghan occupation when policy-makers and military leaders finally realised (as they did by 2005) that we were victorious in Afghanistan only in the square miles we occupied and that even as 2006 rolled around the Taleban became resurgent as their backed war-lords dominated large territorial sections of the country (let's not forget, as recently as 2008 Taleban forces launched attacks on Kabul, for godsake). Yes, troop deployment was increased by 10,000 from 2007-08, but the same kind of 'Surge' in Iraq rose deployment from a massive 100,000 to 130,000. Could you imagine what kind of effect that could have had on the Afghan mission?

The entire Afghan campaign has been a lacklustre affair that was quickly stripped of a remote chance of success by the opening up of a vast Iraqi front that benefited from the kind of resources and deployment that Afghanistan never now would. It is not a stretch to assume that, were 130,000 US troops not tied down in Iraq, with billions of dollars and supplies flooding in on a weekly basis, then the war in the Hindu Kush would be going far better.

We made a strategic blunder by beginning a war which scored no critical success in the early stages, neglected it for a new front, and then returned six years later to begin increasing troop numbers to less than a third of what they were in Iraq.'

- We've made so many fuck ups in Afghanistan, that all culminate into one big fuckup: never giving it the priority it requires. We've acted like fucking Clinton sitting in New York with his finger up his arse, instead of striking out fully and finally at Washington and the militia, before it's gone on so long that there will clearly never be an end (unless you leave).

I am also worried about Pakistan. But they do not seem to want to play ball so there is not much we can do, unless we are willing to give them the finger.

Hi Halo-

The problem I have with your analysis is that we invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, Iraq in March 2003. That was a long time before the Iraq invasion we could have poured troops and cash into Afghanistan if that was all it took. We didn't, because all those extra feet on the ground would accomplish *nothing* that wasn't accomplished with the smaller number. In fact, I maintain it would have been counterproductive, convincing the average Afghan that the US was out to colonize them like the Soviets tried, with similar consequences with regards to insurgency recruitment. With regards to the Taliban, it mattered not a whit how many men we had in Afghanistan when the enemy was hiding in Pakistan where we could not get at them.

The key is, and always has been, for Pakistan to curb it's militancy in the tribal territories and disrupt the safe havens the Taliban have set up there.

I agree that the troop strength was not necessarily that big of a factor, but the change in focus to Iraq of our strategists and intelligence agencies played a huge role, IMO.

I have a little more faith that our intelligence apparatus (as wrong as they can be at times) can adequately focus on more than a single region at a time. That wasn't the problem here.

All our intelligence sources about Afghanistan were filtered through Pakistan's ISI before 2003 as well as the time period in question. That was the true problem, as the ISI had a vested interest in making sure the Taliban survived in some form as a foil against India (and Afghanistan). Until this summer they continued to play both sides, warning Taliban leaders of impending strikes while making half-assed shows of attempting to exert force into the tribal territories. It wasn't until our intelligence services stopped informing the ISI of our attacks ahead of time that we actually started hitting major militants in their safe houses.

Lots of talk about how we screwed up. Well, other than throwing in the towel, what do the armchair Generals in here think is the best plan of action?

For one, perhaps focus just on Kabul. Pull back to a general close proximity of the Embassy and aid in maintaining order there, and leave the rural areas to fend for themselves. That way a force reduction can still cover a large population. Work in the rural areas is doing very little for winning the hearts and minds as they have been as set in their ways for centuries and don't see us as being much better than the Soviets. Chasing after them on their home turf will do little and it will be more resources expended on their end to try and penetrate the capitol.

Second, leave the government alone in Afghanistan unless it turns blatantly hostile. There are plenty of other nations that we are able to conduct business with that don't have anything close to democracy and everyone is just fine with it. We don't need a friend and ally to be produced with the Wests relationship with Afghanistan. We just need the Taliban to be marginalized and to not be the option of desperation for Afghans and Pakistanis. That will also mean there needs to be some economic development in that region as well. That might not even be up to us. There is plenty of money in the Muslim world with plenty of savvy investors. Dubai is certainly an example of what.

I pretty much agree with you except I would also channel a lot of those funds we earmark for "democracy and development" into increasing the pay and training of the Afghan army. We should reduce our presence to a smaller cadre of special forces and make sure the Afghan forces have all the air support they need. A large standing US ground force isn't the way to go.

Supposedly some of our NATO allies have been training them, but the pay for an Afghan soldier is said to be abysmal. That needs to change.

The current strategy of taking ground and holding it won't work unless there is an Afghan force capable of doing the holding and standing up to the Taliban. We can't do it for them.

Lots of talk about how we screwed up. Well, other than throwing in the towel, what do the armchair Generals in here think is the best plan of action?

Pull out about half of our military including most of the extremely expensive air assets, and send in large numbers of teachers and doctors with the remaining armed units directly protecting them. Hire local people to build schools and roads, and shoot anyone interfering on sight.

Keep the doctors and teachers there for 20 years, adjust their protection as necessary, ... , profit.

I think our goals here are modest enough to enable success. We arent looking to create a modern democracy. We just want the semblance of stability and order.

Also, as awful as their election is - at least it is pretending to be legitimate over the election in Iran. They are only 20% through the vote count after all, and they probably will have another run-off election. The most important part of this is the belief in the democracy that can be slowly embraced by the region over the next few decades. Let them believe in having a voice and they'll demand it when they fear they don't.

Send in the drones and let the new age war take over. They cannot fight against those. Put 1000s of them in the sky, man thats so Sci-FI!

Send in the drones and let the new age war take over. They cannot fight against those. Put 1000s of them in the sky, man thats so Sci-FI!

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/images/ga/afghanistan_kabul-market.jpg

Thats a market in Kabul. You are flying a drone. Pick out the Taliban.

The brown one, right?

ok.. one hint.

He looks like this (http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs377s/assignments/waldo/waldo0.jpg)

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/images/ga/afghanistan_kabul-market.jpg

Thats a market in Kabul. You are flying a drone. Pick out the Taliban.



It's the one whipping the woman?

Hire local people to build schools and roads, and shoot anyone interfering on sight.

Keep the doctors and teachers there for 20 years, adjust their protection as necessary, ... , profit.


Well, thats the real trick, right? If people want a form of democracy to work, then the

"Well the Taliban at least offered _Insert_Everyday_Basic_Needs_Item_Here_"

factor has to be eliminated. If someone decided tomorrow to become the King of Afghanistan and used their divine right to bring up the standard of livng for all Afghans then democracy be damned. If the people are happy and are offered a better deal by a non-democratic government to the point where terrorism, violence and jihad have no room in their lives then so be it. Otherwise right now Democracy might be offering LESS to the average Afghan. Fix that issue = Win.

Speaking of the schools, I've been reading lately that it's not a lack of school buildings, but a lack of teachers that's hurting these areas (and Africa). They can build passable buildings themselves, but they can't afford to retain decent teachers. Of course, KBR doesn't sell teachers, so we don't focus on that aspect of the problem!

Speaking of the schools, I've been reading lately that it's not a lack of school buildings, but a lack of teachers that's hurting these areas (and Africa). They can build passable buildings themselves, but they can't afford to retain decent teachers. Of course, KBR doesn't sell teachers, so we don't focus on that aspect of the problem!That, and pay. I read an article last spring profiling teachers in Africa who said it cost more to get to and from work than they actually made teaching. Many of them were turning to other jobs just to make a decent wage.

'It's the one whipping the woman?'

- ROFLMAO! Not sure why that made me spit my tea out, but it did!

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/images/ga/afghanistan_kabul-market.jpg

Thats a market in Kabul. You are flying a drone. Pick out the Taliban.

The one wearing the funny hat?

What ever happened to the Peace Corp going into places like this and providing teachers?

What ever happened to the Peace Corp going into places like this and providing teachers?


Back in the 80s some guy named Reagan and the republican party did everything in their power to remove funding from the Peace Corp, probably due to it having the word Peace in the name. I think they used to say things like "Those commie peace corp people" and things like "it is a bastion of liberal thinkers".

So let me get this straight, the reason that there are no Peace Corp volunteers to go into Afghanistan today, is that 20 years ago, Reagan cut funding. The proceeding 3 Administrations did nothing to reverse that.

And the website disputes your "Cuts in funding" Argument.

In 1982, the number of Volunteers falls to 5,380—the lowest number since 1962—but by 1985, funding has increased and by 1986, the number of Volunteers reaches 6,264. In 1985, Congress establishes a goal of having 10,000 Peace Corps Volunteers serving in the field by 1992.


http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc.history.decades.198 0

If funding was cut, then why is the orginization even still around? According to the Peace Corp's website it's been "40 years and it's still growing".

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc.history

And according to the website in 2005 7,810 Americans serving in the Peace Corps in 77 countries.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc.history.decades.200 0

So my question still stands, why isn't the Peace Corp going into Afghanistan and providing teachers?

The Reagan presidency: assessing the man and his legacy
By Paul Kengor, Peter Schweizer

"Among his foriegn policy successes were cuts in funding for The World Bank, The Peace Corps...this was regaled as the biggest cutback of foriegn aid" since WWII


Funding cuts during the early 1980s dropped the number of volunteers to 5380

Seems that is why the drop in volunteers....


I dunno...maybe try snopes.com or something

Snopes can tell me why cuts in funding back in the 80s are relivant to why the Peace Corps cannot provide teachers to Afghanistan in 2009. Do I understand you correctly?

http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/jss/jss52139-145.pdf

And you may want to read the conclusion drawn on this paper here. The reasons for the cutting of the funding had nothing to do with the words "peace" or "Liberals". Try GRHDRA....

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/images/ga/afghanistan_kabul-market.jpg

Thats a market in Kabul. You are flying a drone. Pick out the Taliban.

That's a trick question. You don't fly drones over Kabul. :)

Thatsa Fargin Trick Question!

4EO4nYqAOfM

Actually, as indicated in the document Sixee linked, the Reagan administration did dramatically increase funding to the Peace Corps early in his second term (specifically, after a period of defunding also indicated on that graph)... but what the graph *doesn't* show you is where some the 'new' volunteers came from. The article euphemistically references 'using aid as a tool of foreign policy', but Reagan's motives weren't entirely humanitarian; he and George Bush Sr used the opportunity to seed the Peace Corps with 'volunteers' with ties to the CIA, which George Sr had previously headed.

The main reasons the 'doctors and teachers' approach has not worked well there (although there have been some successes) have been lack of funding, the highly tribal nature of the country and the inpenetrability of the terrain, an entrenched fear and suspicion of Westerners after nearly forty years of malfeasance by us in their country, and the issue of providing for their safety, which is considerably more difficult than flying the drones overhead to drop the bombs. In addition, there's the small issue of it being more or less impossible for women to operate in the country at all - even the former head of Medicine sans Frontiers operations in Afghanistan was forced to dress and assume the role of a man in order to carry out her job prior to the organization pulling out of the country in 2004 due to attacks on its workers.

My personal feeling is that we have to go back to square one with Afghanistan; completely pull out of the country and limit 'our' involvement to that of organizations like the Peace Corps and other humanitarian NGOs. While this may mean consigning millions of people to oppression and misery, our continued involvement provides the Taliban with a crutch to prop up their ideology of being 'freedom fighters' against the infidel - and that ideology has to be proven hopelessly bankrupt before we stand much of a chance of doing any good over there.

Regards,
Nydia

As long as the country maintains it's practice of women being chattel, it will not progress beyond the several centuries old traditions and practices and will be a lost cause to any who are foolish enough to attempt change.

On the virtues of Afghanus interruptus,

The paper said the revelation came at a "delicate" time, as Congress mulled an administration request for $7.5bn (£4.6bn) in aid to Pakistan over the next five years.

we could also pay for national health care!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8229466.stm

I read about this and noted that the Pakistan government has offered to allow the US to inspect the Harpoon missiles they have purchased from us so that we can be reassured the entire inventory is as it should be. That is the good part.

The bad part is that they will continue to purchase weapons and missiles from other sources (China and South Africa being the two big suppliers) and alter them as needed, so that they can keep up with India's efforts to maintain a stronger offensive ability.

I say write your Congressional reps and ask that the foreign aid monies for Pakistan be spent on health care as Malse suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8230017.stm

- Even the top dog thinks it's going nowhere.

admitting you have a problem is the first step to solving it..

unlike 4-5 years of "Iraq is really turning the corner...."