Afghanistan Set To Implode

[Cowperson]

A British parliamentary committee has warned that Afghanistan is likely to "implode, with terrible consequences" unless more troops and resources are sent to calm the country.

Back to the stone age I guess.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...iraq/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/29/uk.afghan.iraq/index.html)

Cowperson

[peter12]

Afghanistan has been stuck in the Stone Age since 1979.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

You mean committing 11,000 troops to Afghanistan and committing 150,000 to Iraq was the wrong thing to do??? Maybe the smart thing to do would have been to clean up Afghanistan then assess where the next real threat was rather than to run off and invade Iraq looking for a pipe dream??? Say it isn't so!!!

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 29 2004, 02:41 PM
A British parliamentary committee has warned that Afghanistan is likely to "implode, with terrible consequences" unless more troops and resources are sent to calm the country.

Back to the stone age I guess.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...iraq/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/29/uk.afghan.iraq/index.html)

Cowperson
I seem to recall a cowperson post that once went something like: "The US has done such a good job with Afghanistan, that the 20,000 or so US soldiers that are left have nothing to do but to sit on their hands all day"

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu+Jul 29 2004, 04:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nfotiu @ Jul 29 2004, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Jul 29 2004, 02:41 PM
A British parliamentary committee has warned that Afghanistan is likely to "implode, with terrible consequences" unless more troops and resources are sent to calm the country.

Back to the stone age I guess.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...iraq/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/29/uk.afghan.iraq/index.html)

Cowperson
I seem to recall a cowperson post that once went something like: "The US has done such a good job with Afghanistan, that the 20,000 or so US soldiers that are left have nothing to do but to sit on their hands all day" [/b][/quote]
I said they were controlling Afghanistan from two isolated bases with about 9,000 guys, which still appears to be the case. Unlike the Soviets who couldn't control the place with 500,000 guys.

I also said Afghanistan would be a generational project, something to revisit for a progress report 20 years from now.

Other than that, anyone can see though that more needs to be done there.

The interesting thing will be to see if the process can actually involve a democracy or if the better policy for the rest of the world, ala Bill Maher the other day, is to leave a right wing dictatorship in power and forget about them for a while.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 29 2004, 04:53 PM
[QUOTE=Cowperson,Jul 29 2004, 02:41 PM] I said they were controlling Afghanistan from two isolated bases with about 9,000 guys, which still appears to be the case.


How exactly are they "controlling" Afghanistan? The link you provided and the description in the title (about to implode) suggest something very different. The place seems to be, in fact, out of control, and possibly about to get worse.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jul 29 2004, 05:09 PM
[QUOTE=Cowperson,Jul 29 2004, 02:41 PM] I said they were controlling Afghanistan from two isolated bases with about 9,000 guys, which still appears to be the case.


How exactly are they "controlling" Afghanistan? The link you provided and the description in the title (about to implode) suggest something very different. The place seems to be, in fact, out of control, and possibly about to get worse.
For their geopolitical purposes, they seem to be controlling the place.

They've effectively installed a favourable government, surrounded him and the capital with NATO troops under a UN mandate and filled the power vacuum in the remaining areas of the country by essentially leaving the private warlords to their bases of support in exchange for access in fighting al-Queda.

In other words, they're getting what they want out of it even if it is a holding pattern.

To me it looks like something of a status quo situation rather than an attempt to truly energize the country.

Will that strategy eventually accomplish the "generational goals?" Probably not. Eventually the government has to be empowered and eventually the warlords have to be expunged.

Only Afghans can actually do that. Frankly, throwing the 150,000 troops in Iraq into Afghanistan just creates more targets - as you can see in Iraq.

Eventually, in both places, it has to be the locals. They are the ones who will eventually decide the outcome. The Americans in their isolated bases can provide some periodic muscle.

Having said that, Iraq has certainly diverted attention and resources away from empowering the Afghan government and that endangers the effort there.

That's my read today.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't want to play a semantics game, but your explanation doesn't make it sound like they have that country under control. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are, according to the link, operational inside Afghanistan. The bogey man hasn't been found and I think the one eyed loony is still on the loose. The warlords aren't just hanging out and playing cards. As warlords are wont to do, they seem to be warring. There are 27 thousand troops there but it still sounds like the wild west.

That's what the CNN article that you linked to says.

If that's satisfactory control, then I guess the whole "let's get rid of the terrorists and rebuild this failed state" was a lot of hot air. The terrorists are still there and the nation is not rebuilding.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jul 29 2004, 09:06 PM
I don't want to play a semantics game, but your explanation doesn't make it sound like they have that country under control. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are, according to the link, operational inside Afghanistan. The bogey man hasn't been found and I think the one eyed loony is still on the loose. The warlords aren't just hanging out and playing cards. As warlords are wont to do, they seem to be warring. There are 27 thousand troops there but it still sounds like the wild west.

That's what the CNN article that you linked to says.

If that's satisfactory control, then I guess the whole "let's get rid of the terrorists and rebuild this failed state" was a lot of hot air. The terrorists are still there and the nation is not rebuilding.
Well, you ARE playing a semantics game since the place is certainly MORE under control as per what America would want in terms of its geopolitical interests than it was before they arrived there. No one would argue that. I would think America would love it if Iraq were in the current state Afghanistan is given the comparatively limited resources they need to apply to keep their interests intact.

Nevertheless, Afghanistan is hardly in a satisfactory state of affairs and no one would argue that either. Limbo land. Somewhere between a disaster and perfect.

As I noted above, it might be 20 years before anyone is truly happy about the situation there given the existing medieval mentality. It will be a slow process.

The question is more like: "Which way is the pendulum leaning?" A setback or a continued advancement towards an end goal?

A major relief agency says it is leaving because American soldiers are giving out aid. The relief agency says that effort by American soldiers makes their workers appear to be taking sides and that puts them in danger, five of them being slaughtered recently by terrorists. A peculiar issue in a peculiar place.

Semantics? The murder rate in Canada has dropped to its lowest level since 1967. . . . . but there are still murders, many in a particularly vicious and cruel manner involving children. Obviously there's a trend to point to as a positive but the current state isn't something to be happy about in that regard either.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Well just to continue the fun I'll point out that originally you said they were, and I quote, "controlling Afghanistan" and not "they have Afghanistan under more control", which I agree with.

But! And I guess this is my point, after reading the article you linked to, it sounds like Afghanistan is practically in chaos. As for the American geopolitical aims being essentially satisfied -- perhaps, but if they are satisfied then it seems they didn't have particularly lofty goals. If the goals were to have an installed government that apparently doesn't have any power, terrorists and Taliban roaming the countryside, warlords still warlording, an environment now more dangerous for aid workers than it was under the Taliban, and the major news organization in the world warning of civil war and total breakdown, then yes, I'll admit that the goals have been met.

[Cowperson]

Well just to continue the fun I'll point out that originally you said they were, and I quote, "controlling Afghanistan" and not "they have Afghanistan under more control", which I agree with.

I said "for their geopolitical purposes, they seem to be controlling the place." I don't view that as much different from what I said before or later. <_<

But! And I guess this is my point, after reading the article you linked to, it sounds like Afghanistan is practically in chaos.

Millions of Afghan refugees have returned to the country since the Taliban were ousted so, judging by the flow of people, you might have to rethink your application of the word "chaos." I would assume they felt a reason to do so and also perhaps they feel enough security that they aren't leaving again, at least not in a manner that's obvious.

The analysis of the British committee was that Afghanistan would deteriorate into chaos if certain things weren't done and soon.

I've said above the status quo probably isn't good enough in the long term so I'm not particularly dissimilar from their position, but I might argue the timing. They're more into the "imminent" thing whereas I might see it years down the road if the status quo doesn't change.

Although I'm not in favour of huge piles of troops coming into the country - more targets as I said above - I can see the need to ensure elections proceed.

In the end though, if 27 million Afghani's don't want foreigners in their country then they'll have to leave. Then they can return to the stone age. Its an Afghan police force and Afghan army that will eventually have to rule the day. NATO and the UN can only make a committment to help them get up and running so they don't collapse in the first test.

I'm just looking at the balance of various mutual interests riht now and I can see some checks on the analysis of the British committee (just an opinion).

International acceptance of the mission via a UN mandate. The participation of NATO, with even Spain looking to increase its troop committment. The fact the warlords probably have an interest in self-preservation and perhaps a profit motive from opium as well. The central government leaves them alone while it strengthens its own forces (the British Government decries the opium harvest). The fact many of these militias preserve their localized power only through a balance of their personal heavy arms. That makes each warlord dependent on maintaining their own tanks, etc. The USA air force could easily pick the tanks of one militia, destroy them from the air and leave that warlord to his destruction by others (the same way they conquered the country in the first place). Therefore the militias have an interest in maintaining some semblence of peace and order among themselves. And the USA, as does the central government, needs the warlords to fill the power vacuum to tame an untameable countryside, or tame it as much as it can, while having open access to seek out Al Queda. For America, it can fight the war there instead of here.

Mutual self-interests that happen to coincide for the moment. Long term, as the central government expands its control, it infringes on the self-interests of the various warlord factions. Long term, the status quo is untenable.

And weaving their way somewhere into all of this is the ex-Taliban and al-Queda terrorists, obviously the most pressing and immediate problem. There self-interest is only in chaos. As immediately as possible, the opposite of everyone else.

So, the committee is right that the status quo is untenable long term. I might disagree with an analysis that puts things at risk in an imminent way. There is mutual self-interest galore arguing against that.

Just an opinion.

By the way, regarding your comment about the "wild west," this is a country where the national sport is playing a game where a calf carcass is tossed between horsemen looking to score a goal. :blink: So yeah, good analysis on your part!! Wild West is right. Not a place most people would want to live.

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

If anyone is interested, a fair look at the Afghanistan situation from the New York Times. You may have to register to read the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/internat.../01AFGH.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/international/asia/01AFGH.html?hp)

EDIT: Just adding this link - 90% of Afghan's have registered to vote, astounding UN organizors.

"The participation is amazing," U.N. spokesman David Singh said. "There was a lot of skepticism about this process at the beginning, but the targets have been fulfilled."

Registration for elections, which are supposed to cap a U.N.-sponsored peace drive begun after the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001, started last December in eight Afghan cities, and was extended across the country in the spring.

The response has been strong in the north, west and center of the country, where regional leaders — including several opposed to Karzai's plans for a strong central government — have encouraged their supporters to sign up and hundreds of registration sites have already closed.

Ethnic rivalry in a country deeply scarred by years of infighting has also encouraged communities to make sure they are fully represented — including through their women, who account for 41% of the total registered voters.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-08...ghan-vote_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-08-01-afghan-vote_x.htm)

Cowperson