Dutch Government Collapses, To Withdraw from Afghanistan

No it's not, no one of this website would really care if a large bomb murdered 300 people in Iraq or Afghanistan tomorrow, business as usual.

A great deal of people here would actually get a sense of enjoyment from it, dieing vicariously is apparently the new reality TV show, I won't lie, better them than me.

 

Rude

I’m not sure what you mean?

Many have argued that most of the problems with Afghanistan today are a direct result of [FONT=&quot]decisions[/FONT] made by the Bush Admin (and specifically the neo-cons) back in 2001-3.

I, like many, didn’t want the Taliban in control but neither did we want the corrupt and bloody handed warlords of the ‘Northern Alliance’ back in control of Afghanistan either.

The problem is that many people in NATO countries feel that the US was not fully committed to Afghan viability and stability. It was sidetracked before and what is to say it will not be sidetracked again?

The thing is that in democracies the leaders are elected official who have to take note of political winds and election results.

If the US had not been sidetracked by the Iraq invasion and occupation and instead had put the men and resources into Afghanistan it is very likely that today’s NATO governments could be pointing to Afghanistan as a success story.

As it is they are trying to sell a long term war with no foreseeable end in a country that seems corrupt and getting worse.

 

No, but most people in the western world also don't give a genuine two shits about the people in Haiti or the tsuanmi victims 5 years ago, does this mean the people taking in the aid didn't need it any less?

Also for the record, let's go back to 2004: Iraq, war with no seen end that has no chance of success.

Huh, well lets show their parliamentary election goes this month. And if the US/Iraq meets the Iraqi deadline to be out by the end of next year.

Jesus Bush's asinine policies don't matter anymore, people say it to Obama now I'm saying it to you, this isn't 2002, stop bringing up Bush. Bush has no damn relevance to the lives of the Afghani people except has history now. Jesus christ focus on the present.

 

If the US would step back from it's "special relationship" with Isreal, I think it would go a long way towards easing Arab hostility's directed at the US.

Obama at least needs to toughen up , hold Israel responsible for it's defiance concerning settlement expansion...

ZW

 

This would do amazing amount of good but not happening any time soon.

 

I would say anyone who thinks the mess Afghanistan is in now is because of the Bush administration is probably just a mouth peace for the move.org racket, the soviets were in there throughout the 80's and the country for almost as long as time records has have infighting and small civil wars ruining any chance of success for democracy, saying that George Bush is responsable for Afghanistan's problems is an easy cop out answer to a question most people don't care to research for themselves.

Tell me more about the bloddy and corrupt warlords of the northern allaince.

Whats with the sophmore government lesson?

What was more pertient, Iraq or Afghanistan in your opinion, what is more ecconomically viable?

These questions are not hard to figure out.

If your reffering to Iraq in this, I have to laugh.

 

Rude

Many have argued that most of the problems with Afghanistan today are a direct result of decisions made by the Bush Admin (and specifically the neo-cons) back in 2001-3.

Your take on history here seems selective and simplistic.

Here is an extended version of something I wrote earlier

*

I, like many, didn’t want the Taliban in control but neither did we want the corrupt and bloody handed warlords of the ‘Northern Alliance’ back in control of Afghanistan either.

I think you can get what you need to know from the above, but please don’t hesitate to ask if you want more.

*

The thing is that in democracies the leaders are elected official who have to take note of political winds and election results.

Well with all due respect, from some of your comments it seemed like you needed one. My point was that you seem to be looking at this in an over simplistic manner.

*

 

If the US had not been sidetracked by the Iraq invasion and occupation and instead had put the men and resources into Afghanistan it is very likely that today’s NATO governments could be pointing to Afghanistan as a success story.

This seems rather hypocritical, one moment you seem to be saying we should be concerned for the welfare of the Afghan people the next you’re arguing that they’re not that important and the overwhelming concern is economics.
I don’t think you can have both.

I mean if the overwhelming concern should be economics then it’s not hard to figure out that most NATO governments would be a lot better off withdrawing the troops from the country.

*

The interesting question here is – “What was more pertient, Iraq or Afghanistan”

Pertinent – a strange word it can mean what is relevant or suitable, but it can also mean what is legitimate.

Legality – Well there were clear UN resolutions and mandates for the attack on Afghanistan, plus justification in International law. There were no UN resolutions and mandates for the attack on Iraq and it seems that most independent International lawyers think the justification for the invasion were dubious at best if not damn right illegal

Relevance – The reason for the US’s more strident (even bellicose) foreign policy was 9/11. Afghanistan was attacked because the alleged leadership of the attack were based in that country and the Taliban would not give them up. But how relevant was Iraq in the 9/11 attacks? Well despite a lot of innuendo at the time there seems to have been no connection.

Suitability - If the criterion was economic, then Iraq is clearly the more suitable target its oil reserves are supposedly the second largest in the world. Many of those associated with the neo-con think tank Project for a new American Century (many of whom went on to work in the Bush Admin) pointed out Iraq’s strategic suitability, as somewhere to place US military bases.

*

But what does that say about the US foreign policy of the time, I think one word sums it up – opportunistic.

And the conclusion that a lot of people in other NATO countries were bound to draw from that – that they came to the aid of an ally who then buggered off to pursue it’s own selfish interests.

Is it any wonder that many in NATO countries are wary of US intentions or simply want out?

 

I think we're doing this wrong, this is going to be the same never ending circle jerk arguments.

Let's do this easier, Balbus, if you were dictator of NATO, what would you do with Afghanistan?

 

Mad

Your question makes it plain you haven’t understood what I’ve been trying to say I blame myself for that I must have not been as clear as I thought I was.

I’m trying to explain why many in NATO countries want to get out of Afghanistan.

As I’ve said they feel that they came to the aid of an ally who then buggered off to pursue its own selfish interests.

And now that it has committed itself in Iraq and seems likely to always see that as more important than Afghanistan, they fear that in the future it is likely to bugger off again.

They feel as I do that the best opportunity for Afghanistan was squandered on the battlefields of Iraq.

And that however committed the US claims to be now its commitment is tried to is own self interests not to those of the Afghans.

The actions in Afghanistan are having to be explained anew because they got sold out the first time around.

And a lot of the problems with selling it anew now are down to it been sold out the first time.

It’s a political issue not a military one.

NATO is a military alliance, but its members are democratic states and politicians in democracies have to listen to the people to one degree or the other.

*

Mad basically the US has to sell the Afghan involvement – now it can tell the world that it is committed to helping the Afghan people but many in the world are going to ask – well why didn’t you rather than buggering off to Iraq?

 

Well if the world had listened to the leader of the ‘Northern Alliance’ (Ahmed Shar Massoud) maybe 9/11 would not have happened, he went to France to try and warn people that things were about to happen, but to them he was just a little Afghani guy and they didn't listen, Al qaeda killed him with a camera bomb, and the next day it all happened, he was there only enemy they had to worry about.

 

And maybe if the west hadn’t abandoned Afghanistan after the soviet pull out 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879167-2,00.html#ixzz0iKUqSnRI

The point is that the brutal warlords were shoehorned back into power by the US and NATO back in 2001 and have consolidated that position. Which isn’t good for Afghanistan or the Afghan people.

Several human rights groups have documented extortion rackets, land grabs, rapes, murders and kidnappings all linked to warlords many of whom have held Afghan government positions or control, through bribery and intimidation, such government officials.

*

The thing is that many people and their politicians in NATO countries know this. They also strongly suspect that the reason for the present situation in Afghanistan is mostly if not wholly down to the US governments desire to go after Iraq.

 

And that opportunistic decision by the neo-cons has lead to an unsustainable occupation of both regions. The bill for such foolish and short-sighted arrogance is still growing and the U.S. will be hard-pressed to pay it. It's hilarious how the teabaggers and their media cheerleaders scream about the country going broke but refuse to see why it's so. They instead pretend it has something to do with the new 'socialist' administration and its yet-to-be-realized ideas.

 

No kidding Sherlock. Now, will Balbus kindly report to 2010, 2003 from 7 years ago, it doesn't matter if we went into Iraq or not, the point is we did. This isn't about Iraq either, this is on how best to secure Afghanistan's future. Now unless you want to complain about the fact that troops in Iraq could be in Afghanistan, Iraq has no relevance to the matter of the current situation in Afghanistan except for how it got to be the way it is. It has no beating to its future.

NATO's reasoning to get out of Afghanistan is nothing but a ploy to win votes by opposition parties. You can't use the "they felt betrayed by their ally" excuse when most of the countries in the ISAF also supported and participated in the initial invasion of Afghanistan. ISAF even as of now is still made up of mostly American forces, don't pull the we didn't focus on Afghanistan card. It was a NATO operation under the sanction of the UN, it's time for other NATO members to pony up some troops. We spend near 1/2 our discretionary budget on our military and all NATO members know they can spend the 2% minimum since they have the full backing of the United States, but when NATO finally does something in its life it's members start running to get out to win votes. Leaving Afghanistan shouldn't even be an option for any country who is a member of NATO. Why are nearly 60% of ISAF forces American? Especially when our non NATO contingent is near the same size.
Put just the militaries of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain together you have a military near the size of America's. Add in every other NATO member. Why are American troops still the majority of the ISAF considering this is in fact a NATO mission and command. This is with America being in two wars. Seriously you're going to say our allies feel like we let them down in support?

Maybe, it's our allies who let us down. Don't join a military alliance if you don't have the teeth to see a war through till the end.

 

Yeah! Just because the U.S. decided to go screw the pooch instead of doing the job when it was still do-able is no reason for taking a break after only 8 years.

 

Alliances often consists of having to pick up the slack other nations can't do, our "NATO" force in Afghanistan even with us in Iraq at our peak troop levels there was still over 60% American. Yet the combined military size of NATO without America included is more then 50%" The ISAF even still doesn't have authority over the majority of Afghanistan and our allies can't even make the NATO contribution to Afghanistan at least 50% non American.

Hmm, something isn't right with these numbers. I think for the good of America, America should probably leave NATO.

 

It should.

 

Mad

Oh don’t learn from history, that’s like… you know, so over.

When politicians want to cover up past mistakes there are two routes they usually take; one is to try and re-write history and the other is to tell people to ignore the past and instead look to the future.

The problem is that the past shapes the present and future along with how it is viewed or perceived.

So here we get a call to forget the past in favour of the future.

But the problem is many people and their politicians in NATO countries strongly suspect that the reason for the present situation in Afghanistan is mostly if not wholly down to the US governments desire to go after Iraq. In other words the past actions of the US have made it more difficult to bring about a better future for Afghanistan.

Ordering people to forget the past isn’t going to change it.

As to the future - well if the US did something like that in the past couldn’t it do something similar in the future?

*

And that’s been one of my points. In many NATO countries (including the US) there is popular opposition to what’s happened/happening in Afghanistan.

“win votes” - If you actually look at it from a democratic viewpoint politicians (should be) representatives of the peoples views and would be remiss in that position if they didn’t reflect their constituents views.

Would you prefer a more authoritarian system where people had to do what they were told?

*

You mean when the US hadn’t started the invasion of Iraq? So since they hadn’t been ‘betrayed’ in the initial invasion, they can’t subsequently claim ‘betrayal’ after they had been ‘betrayed’?

So I don’t think you thought that one through.

*

The US invoked the NATO defence clause and asked for help. So it was always a US initiated and led operation.

*

NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Basically NATO was set up as a political tool, a counter to Soviet power and possible resurgent German power as one Secretary General stating its purpose was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”

The strongest partner has always been the US and the US has always liked it that way. The US is a superpower and wants dominance and that’s why it has chosen to spend so much on giving the impression of dominance. For that reason its military expenditure nearly matches what the rest of the world spends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

But when the US is stretched there are many American voices complaining that Europeans don’t do enough. However the US has always been very wary of Europe forming any type of independent military alliance.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56336482.html

Because they know that just as NATO has a political as well as military agenda so would a European one, in other words it would be a rival, imagine a more military Germany or a European military alliance that included Russia?

The thing is that to me if the US pulled out of NATO or let it wither in favour of some other organisation, its political power would actually be diminished.

*