Western involvement in Afghanistan

“The majority are against this war but apparently we don't have a fucking Democracy any more!” – Zombiewolf

 

My take is that it was tragically set up to fail

The neo-con faction in control of the US government at the time, didn’t want the war in Afghanistan and seem to have seen it as an irritation and an irrelevance. They had their sights and hopes on Iraq.

So they didn’t give Afghanistan the attention it deserved, basically they just helped back into power the brutal and corrupt warlords that the Taliban had driven out of power (which had been a popular move at the time) a few years before.

Once they and Nato garrison troops were in place the neo-con pulled out men and resources to use in Iraq.

That was bad but things got worse the aid promised to the country just didn’t turn up.

It stopped looking and feeling like a liberation and more like a half-arsed and apathetic occupation, by ineffectual western forces while all the time the corrupt warlords solidified their control of the regions, thwarting any attempt by the central government to rein them in.

The limited ‘reconstruction’ stagnated.

*

The thing is that if western forces leave Afghanistan it would most likely result in another period of Civil War which would only result in the Taliban (or something similar) in control, basically a return to what the country was like in 2001 except even poorer and more devastated.

 

Hopes for what?

When did this occur?

 

Odon

I think the hope was for ‘forward bases’ from which to threaten the US’s perceived enemies, Syria and above all Iran, which would also protect certain resources seen as vital to the US.

The view that US attention (and resources) were shifted toward Iraq is not an usual one -

Lara Logan, CBS's chief foreign correspondent

 

Thanks. It makes sense when you remove "neo-con".

 

Why?

 

Well, it adds a dimension that is prejudicial, imho.
It adds undue negative political propaganda, imho.
It removes any relevance commanders on the ground may have had in deciding the best course of action (which is more likely than "neo-con faction in control of the US government at the time".)...as similar troop re-deployments are being engaged in as we speak...
Who's directed that the "neo-libs"?

Do you think you are being neutral?
If so, perhaps answer my first question in a neutral manner.

 

The majority are also idiots who can't put things into context.

Plus the fact:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/poll-7-in-10-afghans-supp_n_418252.html

The afghans actually want us there.

 

Just 47 percent said they had a favorable view of the United States, down from 83 percent in 2005. Only 37 percent said that most people in their area support NATO and the International Security Assistance Force; 67 percent supported ISAF in 2006.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/26/spanta-afghanistan-poll/

 

Uhh, how they feel about America itself has nothing to do with the whether they support American troops being there. Pft 47%, some European nations have lower support numbers for America then that.

I think by this point, between the great game with Russia and Britain, the Soviet invasion, and American funding of rebel groups there, we have a moral obligation to finally help these people now have a stable country, and they seem to agree.

 

How many more insurgents did this create?...

KABUL – NATO jets mistakenly killed at least 21 people in central Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Monday, the deadliest attack on civilians in six months. The strike prompted a sharp rebuke from the Afghan government as it struggles to win public backing for a major military offensive against the Taliban in south.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

 

Probably not many considering after years of combat and civilian deaths only 10% of Afghanis support the taliban and most deaths in the country result from insurgent attacks.

Try again.

 

Our entire involvement in the M.E. is a sick fuckin' sham, always was...US imperialism pure and simple.



KABUL — It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.
Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy.
“Everyone knows this is going on,” said one U.S. Embassy official, speaking privately.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/taliban/funding-the-taliban

 

Our involvement anywhere is freakin imperialism, had we gone to Rwanda and stopped the genocide you'd be calling that imperialism.

Wow, there's corruption in a war torn country, I did not know that beforehand.

 

Odon

I said I’m giving my take, my opinion and I’m placing blame where I think blame is due. And the "neo-con faction in control of the US government at the time" was I believe to blame for most of the foreign policy mistakes of that period.

If you remember there was conflict between military commanders and Washington, (especially over Iraq) about troop numbers then about the decisions on the ground.

As to the present operations in Afghanistan, well any administration has to deal with the mistakes of previous administrations. I think they realise that a US pull out means a Nato pull out and the place descents into the same bloody anarchy that followed the soviet withdrawal, with the probable same outcome. However if they don’t turn things around soon then it could turn bad form them in the US.

 

poppy seed a staple food ... not just a source of drug....

 

I appreciate that.
Are you characterising "Washington" as ALL "Neo-Cons"?

 

Odon

LOL

OK…I see

Having already established who I was talking about twice (to recap for you the ‘neo-con faction in control of the US government at the time’) I though someone with your obvious intelligence would understand who I was talking about when I said ‘Washington’ in the context it was given. I see I must have made a mistake and will try to keep things…how do I say,…simpler for you in future.

On the other hand you could be just playing a game of ‘Mr. Pedantic’s semantics’ as a way of getting out of the debate?

So what is your take?


*

 

Balbus, I'm not seeking to be pedantic.
I'm just trying to say that "Washington" isn't rammed full of "Neo-Cons"...
...Imho, the Bush admin' wasn't rammed full of "Neo-Cons".
So it wasn't just "Neo-Cons" deciding on troop levels.
Imho, it is a tad simplistic to assume any drop in No.s, or swing from one arena to another, Is the fault of one particular faction over another.
If indeed there truly is a mass "Neo-Con" faction speaking with one voice.
You might say it is/there are, with hindsight...or that anything you deem a bad move (or selfish move) is because of "The bad guys"...(it seems in your eyes "The Neo-Cons")...I don't think life works like that.

I understood it was your opinion.
I was merely questioning your opinion.
I perhaps should have been clearer.
I wasn't trying to be manipulative, honest guv.

No, be as complicated as you wish.
I'll just be less vague.

The neo-con faction in control of the US government at the time, didn’t want the war in Afghanistan and seem to have seen it as an irritation and an irrelevance. They had their sights and hopes on Iraq.

So they didn’t give Afghanistan the attention it deserved, basically they just helped back into power the brutal and corrupt warlords that the Taliban had driven out of power (which had been a popular move at the time) a few years before.

Once they and Nato garrison troops were in place the neo-con pulled out men and resources to use in Iraq.

That was bad but things got worse the aid promised to the country just didn’t turn up.

It stopped looking and feeling like a liberation and more like a half-arsed and apathetic occupation, by ineffectual western forces while all the time the corrupt warlords solidified their control of the regions, thwarting any attempt by the central government to rein them in.

The limited ‘reconstruction’ stagnated.

*

The thing is that if western forces leave Afghanistan it would most likely result in another period of Civil War which would only result in the Taliban (or something similar) in control, basically a return to what the country was like in 2001 except even poorer and more devastated.

 

Ok, jokes aside...I'll get back to you