Supporters of the War in Afghanistan must decide why they support it

[Undesired Walrus]

It seems to me that there are two lines of defence for the war in Afghanistan. One in which supporters stress the dreadful conditions of the women under the Taliban, and one in which they stress the threat posed by AQ under the Taliban. They are often used by the same supporter as justifications.

Yet people need to decide whether they support this war for the Afghan people or International security. It seems you can't have both. Look at the horrific position of Afghan women in the following article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/07/afghanistan-women-plight-may-worsen
Among the examples of abuses against women collected by the organisation was the case of a woman who was gang raped by a group that included a powerful local militia commander.

Although she fought to have her rapists prosecuted, they were subsequently pardoned by Karzai. Later, her husband was assassinated

Either way, the Afghan people will be left at the mercy of a terrible Government with little respect for civil rights. It seems Obama's pragmatism towards this issue is the right one to take.

[Darth Rotor]

It seems to me that there are two lines of defence for the war in Afghanistan.

One in which supporters stress the dreadful conditions of the women under the Taliban, and

one in which .

They are often used by the same supporter as justifications.
What was that second thing you meant to say? :confused:
Yet people need to decide whether they support this war for the Afghan people or International security. It seems you can't have both.
Yes, you can.
Look at the horrific position of Afghan women in the following article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/07/afghanistan-women-plight-may-worsen
:(
Pragmatism must be applied here. Either way, the Afghan people will be left at the mercy of a terrible Government with little respect for civil rights. It seems Obama has it right in this field.
Wait a minute. Do you mean to tell me that someone who wasn't Taliban treated women harshly, badly, grossly in Afghanistan?

FWIW, I regret to report that there are no Taliban operating overtly in the US, but we still have problems with people getting raped, which sucks, by gang members (gang bangers would have been an awful pun), which also sucks, and more besides. Advocates for victims, and witnesses to crimes, are now and again assassinated by criminals.

We have governors who pardon criminals who go on to commit horrible crimes. (See the recent case of cop killer in Washington State).

Granted, this story about Karzai pardoning these rapists smells to high heaven, but you can have both.

See Diem for an example, 1963. :p That of course opens another can of worms ...

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

Yet the priority is the removal of the Taliban from a position of power. It seems we can't fool ourselves that the protection of the Afghan women is on the same balance as the removal of an AQ supportive state.

I say this as the declaration of what the Taliban do to young schoolgirls, for example, is often thrown into the debate in support, but when the brutality of Karzai is brought into the equation the supporter swings over onto the other branch and stresses that as appalling as this may be, we must make sure that the country doesn't fall to the Taliban. Strikes of hypocrisy.

Are you saying you can use both reasons as a justification for war because things are slightly (although that can be debated) better for the Aghan chicks under this leadership than under the big bearded ones?

[Darth Rotor]

Yet the priority is the removal of the Taliban from a position of power. It seems we can't fool ourselves that the protection of the Afghan women is on the same balance as the removal of an AQ supportive state.
Policy statements to date agree with your assessment.
I say this as the declaration of what the Taliban do to young schoolgirls, for example, is often thrown into the debate in support, but when the brutality of Karzai is brought into the equation the supporter swings over onto the other branch and stresses that as appalling as this may be, we must make sure that the country doesn't fall to the Taliban. Strikes of hypocrisy.
Karzai isn't as difficult to work with as the Taliban. He is still a problem. This is a lesser of two evils problem, not a problem of hypocrisy. Do you have a third choice available for implementation?
Are you saying you can use both reasons as a justification for war because things are slightly (although that can be debated) better for the Aghan chicks under this leadership than under the big bearded ones?
Do you have a third choice to offer? As it stands now, there are women and young ladies in school. Under the Talib, the odds are it will revert, yet again. See also the workplace problems, which IIRC in the 90's was that nurses and teachers were basically being fired/sent home for their gender.

The security problem is related to security and problems in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan, given the Taliban being active there. So I don't think your "either or" fits the situation.

It can be both.

DR

[Thunder]

The Taliban was a horrible, extremist, brutal regime, that gave safe haven to Al Qaeda where they could train and prepare for 9-11.

while our goal of totally removing the Taliban may have been lofty, we have made a commitment to the people of this land, and we must stick with that commitment.

the day the people of Afghanistan demand we leave, we should get out.

[JoeTheJuggler]

the day the people of Afghanistan demand we leave, we should get out.

Which people of Afghanistan? Or does it have to be 100% unanimous? (In which case it would be more honest to say we don't care a bit whether the people of Afghanistan want us out.)

ETA: BTW, we said the same thing about Iraq. Iraqi leaders have pushed for our withdrawal for quite some time now. I guarantee withdrawal won't happen "the day" such a request is made. While troops going in happens pretty quick, the withdrawal part rarely does. That's why these things are referred to as "quagmires". You sort of get stuck. I think full awareness of this fact should be part of our decision to send the troops in the first place. (We never seem to think it through and realize how sticky these situations get.)

I think U.W. makes a reasonable point.

I'm not sure how someone can cite a justification for us being there that isn't connected to our mission there. So, if we cite the mistreatment of women under the Taliban as justification for being there, part of our mission should be the establishment of a government that doesn't mistreat women.

If we support a government that mistreats women, then clearly the mistreatment of women doesn't justify our presence.

[Darth Rotor]

I think U.W. makes a reasonable point.

I'm not sure how someone can cite a justification for us being there that isn't connected to our mission there. So, if we cite the mistreatment of women under the Taliban as justification for being there, part of our mission should be the establishment of a government that doesn't mistreat women.

If we support a government that mistreats women, then clearly the mistreatment of women doesn't justify our presence.
Is any mistreatment of women necessarily a function of government? As I noted above, women sometimes get mistreated (rape is a bit beyond "mistreatment" IMO :mad: ) in my country. Is that due to the government being screwed up and in need of change?

Here is what UW's earlier point almost looks like, transplanted to my country:

"Oh dear, someone got raped, and someone covered it up. Get rid of President Obama." (Granted, if someone close to President Obama was involved, and the President covered for him, then perhaps that last sentence would be in order).

DR

[plumjam]

It seems we can't fool ourselves that the protection of the Afghan women is on the same balance as the removal of an AQ supportive state.

The 'let's improve the plight of Afghan women' part was always just an opportunistic propaganda adjunct. I don't remember any of the west's top politicians being concerned about Afghan women when the Taliban types were blowing up Russians.

[Pardalis]

So we let the Afghans fight off the Taliban themselves?

Yeah, that'll work... :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

So we let the Afghans fight off the Taliban themselves?

Yeah, that'll work... :rolleyes:
Since some of the Afghans are Taliban ... I don't think the way you set up the sides fits what UW was getting at.

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

Pardalis, where was that ever implied (if you replied to my OP)? I don't advocate pulling out (sexually or in afghanistan).

[Eyeron]

Why must there be only one reason? Why can't there be multiple reasons for supporting the war?

[quadraginta]

So we let the Afghans fight off the Taliban themselves?

Yeah, that'll work... :rolleyes:

Since some of the Afghans are Taliban ... I don't think the way you set up the sides fits what UW was getting at.

DR


Cogent point, DR.

I think that something often overlooked in current discussions about the Taliban is that they are an Afghan (largely Pashtun) party which came to power by means of providing stability and authority in the disastrously lawless power vacuum left after the withdraw of the Soviets.

It would be a misapprehension to assume that the Taliban ruled only as vicious criminal overlords. There was support for their regime. There still is.

Afghan politics is not the simple, singular national concern which comes to mind when most Westerners contemplate the term. Tribal rivalries extend farther back in history than many of those Western countries have existed, and an ebb and flow of friendships, alliances, disputes, and treachery between then has always been part of the normal state of affairs.

The Pashtun are the largest single 'ethnic' (read 'tribal') group in Afghanistan, and England chose to draw the border it wanted for Pakistan pretty much through the middle of their ancestral territory. This is why we have so much trouble with the Taliban running back and forth across the "border". It wasn't their idea in the first place.

The earliest modern failures of military intervention in Afghanistan (circa 1839) resulted from a complete inability of the Westerners in charge of such efforts to understand these basic realities about what could only loosely be defined as "a" country to begin with. The subsequent failures resulted from exactly the same lack of understanding.

This includes the one we are currently engaged in.

[FireGarden]

Is any mistreatment of women necessarily a function of government?

If this:

Rape was put on the statute books as a criminal offence this year but it is still not widely regarded by the police or the courts as a serious crime, with the attackers often receiving greater legal protection than the victims.

[...] "Whether it is a high-profile woman under threat, a young woman who wants to escape a child marriage, or a victim of rape who wants to see the perpetrator punished, the response from the police or courts is often hostile," the group said.

is true, then yes, the mistreatment of women is a function of government. Who else controls the police and courts? Who is going to make the police and courts change if not the government?

As I noted above, women sometimes get mistreated (rape is a bit beyond "mistreatment" IMO :mad: ) in my country. Is that due to the government being screwed up and in need of change?

In the case of America, you could reliably say it was down to a few people abusing their power and (most importantly) breaking the law.

"Oh dear, someone got raped, and someone covered it up.

You see, to me, the main problem is that things like this:

A 13-year old girl said that after she escaped marriage she was pursued by her husband's family. Years later she still has not succeeded in getting a legal separation from her illegal marriage and women's activists have been denounced in parliament for giving her shelter.

Don't sound like a cover-up of any kind. They sound like the law is openly on the wrong side.

[JihadJane]

Reasons to stay in Afghanistan, ≠24:

Euros become currency of drug cartels (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/06/drug-cartels-eruos-dollars-europol)

Smugglers and launderers use €500 notes instead of $100 bills to save space

[theprestige]

I don't support it. I used to, but not anymore.

I supported the original Bush Administration concept of making war against "state sponsors of terror".

I'm sure the Afghani warlords would have no trouble coming up with an impressively long list of better things to do than get a facefull of JDAM for harboring international terrorist organizations. And if that list happens to include oppressing their womenfolk, destabilizing each other, or even exporting opium, I don't see how that matters to US national security, or requires any significant expenditure of American blood and treasure.

If that list includes destabilizing Pakistan, that's a problem Pakistan is welcome to solve for itself. If that list includes destabilizing the region, then it's probably because somebody hasn't received their special delivery JDAM yet. Seriously. It would probably cost less money, and it would definitely cost less American and allied lives, to simply pay the Afghanis to keep their shenanigans to themselves.

I supported the war against the Hussein regime in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a jerk, because he was a source of instability in a strategically important region that's already unstable enough as it is, and most importantly because Iraq is a useful base of operations for delivering more JDAMs to more state sponsors of terror.

But that whole conception fell apart, probably because while Iran has the stomach to export terrorism as a method of warfare against enemies it can't defeat through "conventional" means, nobody else seems to have the stomach to admit that Iran is actually at war with them.

So it all becomes about useless BS like "exporting democracy" and "nation-building". And meanwhile enemy combatants have discovered that if they don't abide by the Geneva Conventions, instead of being treated like the monsters they are, they are accorded the full rights and privileges of law-abiding citizens.

[T.A.M.]

The problem I have with some of the lines of thought here, some of the justifications for staying there, is it sets a dangerous precedent.

So will we start invading every country that mistreats women? What about countries that tolerate the sexual abuse of children? What about countries that execute Gays? None of these things are right, but if we use them as justification for invasion, we (NATO) will soon find ourselves in VERY VERY short supply of soldiers.

IMO, the justification for the War in Afghanistan is to make the country and/or its government and people, inhospitable, dare I say incompatible, with the resurgence of the Taliban as significant player or power. In so doing, we will greatly decrease the chances of a resurgence of Al-Qaeda in that country.

But then what? Do we go into Pakistan? Ok, then what? Somalia? Sudan?

TAM:)

[theprestige]

But then what? Do we go into Pakistan? Ok, then what? Somalia? Sudan?

TAM:)
Yes, yes, and... yes. Anywhere, pretty much, where people band together to plot, mount, or execute a threat against national security. Or, alternatively, tolerate threats to national security as "not such a big deal, really".

Of course, the former would mean actually going to war with a handful of nation-states. Which is why, when it comes to terrorism, many people prefer the latter.

The genius of terrorism is that it arrows directly into that sweet spot between "causing as much trouble as possible" and "convincing someone to declare war". 9/11, and Bush's reaction to it, were much more honest about what is actually going on--warfare--but also a little too honest, and the fit soon passed.

[quadraginta]

<snip>

IMO, the justification for the War in Afghanistan is to make the country and/or its government and people, inhospitable, dare I say incompatible, with the resurgence of the Taliban as significant player or power. In so doing, we will greatly decrease the chances of a resurgence of Al-Qaeda in that country.

<snip>



The problem with this is that it assumes that the alignment between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is somehow a unique one which would not be convenient to other groups that might try to maintain power in Afghanistan. That is not necessarily the case.

Al-Qaeda is not just a bunch of wackos running around blowing things up, and the Taliban is not just a bunch of religious fundamentalists bent on subjugating the females of the world. There is a tendency to perceive them as such, and react accordingly, which has led to a great deal of wasted effort.

If a magical miracle happened tomorrow and all of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban simply disappeared from the face of the earth they would quickly be replaced by something virtually identical, because the root causes that made them able to thrive would not be gone as well.

[theprestige]

The problem with this is that it assumes that the alignment between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is somehow a unique one which would not be convenient to other groups that might try to maintain power in Afghanistan. That is not necessarily the case.
On the other hand, the Taliban hasn't found it terribly convenient to align with Al Qaeda, nor to export terrorism, very much at all in the past few years.

It's certainly possible for some new regime to come along, replace the Taliban, and conclude that while it is possible to perpetrate all kinds of shenanigans without attracting unwanted attention, aligning with Al Qaeda is extremely inconvenient.

[quadraginta]

On the other hand, the Taliban hasn't found it terribly convenient to align with Al Qaeda, nor to export terrorism, very much at all in the past few years.

It's certainly possible for some new regime to come along, replace the Taliban, and conclude that while it is possible to perpetrate all kinds of shenanigans without attracting unwanted attention, aligning with Al Qaeda is extremely inconvenient.


This is all very true. The suggestion, unspoken, is that that is because we have troops on the ground there to make that so.

The question is whether the costs, in lives and money, of having troops on the ground there is or ever has been warranted by the results achieved, whether we want to continue that expenditure, and whether there might ways to garner equal or even superior results without the same costs.

Personally I believe that there is. I think that the decisions which led to our current involvement in Afghanistan were made without regard to the present and historical realities of the area. To be frank, I think they were made with mind-numbing ignorance and colossal stupidity. I also think they were made more with opportunism concerning local, short term political aims in mind than with any real intent to achieve any of the alleged goals.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, yes, and... yes. Anywhere, pretty much, where people band together to plot, mount, or execute a threat against national security. Or, alternatively, tolerate threats to national security as "not such a big deal, really".

Of course, the former would mean actually going to war with a handful of nation-states. Which is why, when it comes to terrorism, many people prefer the latter.

The genius of terrorism is that it arrows directly into that sweet spot between "causing as much trouble as possible" and "convincing someone to declare war". 9/11, and Bush's reaction to it, were much more honest about what is actually going on--warfare--but also a little too honest, and the fit soon passed.

So you are a fan of the Bush Doctrine then. Well I can't say I am. I don't think most of the world is either. The idea that one country can just go around invading any country IT FEELS is a threat to it, is rather barbaric, albeit all to common in human history.

TAM:)

[theprestige]

So you are a fan of the Bush Doctrine then. Well I can't say I am. I don't think most of the world is either. The idea that one country can just go around invading any country IT FEELS is a threat to it, is rather barbaric, albeit all to common in human history.
Well, it sure beats the doctrine of invading countries one doesn't FEEL are a threat. For that matter, it also beats the doctrine of not invading countries one FEELS are a threat. But what would you suggest? When one state funds, trains, equips, or otherwise sponsors a guerrilla army for the purpose of attacking another state, what would you call it? A feeling?

[geni]

Well, it sure beats the doctrine of invading countries one doesn't FEEL are a threat.

Don't knock it it worked for the best part of a century.


For that matter, it also beats the doctrine of not invading countries one FEELS are a threat.

Invading such contries tends to be expensive.


But what would you suggest? When one state funds, trains, equips, or otherwise sponsors a guerrilla army for the purpose of attacking another state, what would you call it? A feeling?

US preperations for the bay of pigs mess I think.

[theprestige]

Don't knock it it worked for the best part of a century.

Invading such contries tends to be expensive.

US preperations for the bay of pigs mess I think.
You seem to be making some interesting points, but I'm not sure I understand them. Would you be willing to explain your thought process in greater detail?

[psychictv]

When one state funds, trains, equips, or otherwise sponsors a guerrilla army for the purpose of attacking another state, what would you call it? A feeling?

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation? ;)

[quarky]

Its good news for Iran and North Korea. Afghanistan will wear us out.

[geni]

You seem to be making some interesting points, but I'm not sure I understand them. Would you be willing to explain your thought process in greater detail?

Invading countries that are not a threat is sound imperial policy. It worked out quite well for spain in the short and medium term. Invadeing countries that are a threat presents a significant militry risks and is best avoided.

[theprestige]

Invading countries that are not a threat is sound imperial policy. It worked out quite well for spain in the short and medium term. Invadeing countries that are a threat presents a significant militry risks and is best avoided.
Are you arguing, contra T.A.M., that the US should adopt an imperialist policy of military conquest of nonthreatening countries?

Are you arguing that states that sponsor terrorism should be permitted to do so, on account of how it takes some amount of effort to make them stop?

(Obviously in the case of Cuba, it couldn't really do much to put a stop to US shenanigans like the Bay of Pigs, but it did what it could. And if the positions were reversed?)

[MattusMaximus]

9/11

Duh :rolleyes:

[geni]

Are you arguing, contra T.A.M., that the US should adopt an imperialist policy of military conquest of nonthreatening countries?

If the US wishes to see the best return on it's use of force then that would be a fairly reasonable aproach yes.

Military conquest is too expensive these days. There are better ways of useing force. See france and it's former empire. US used to do much the same in south america.


Are you arguing that states that sponsor terrorism should be permitted to do so, on account of how it takes some amount of effort to make them stop?


I understand this is the current international consensus yes. States that are hard enough to invade are allowed to make use of whatever irregular tactics they like without getting invaded. Russia for example.

Now personaly I don't think afganistan counts as that hard to invade (occupying the place is hard invading no) although it something of an open question if it was actualy worth putting as many troops on the ground as we have done.

[JihadJane]

When one state funds, trains, equips, or otherwise sponsors a guerrilla army for the purpose of attacking another state, what would you call it? A feeling?


I'd call it the United States of America inc.

Is there anyone posting here who believes that the US is in Afghanistan for geo-strategic reasons rather to "underwrite global security" (LOL), destroy the Taliban (who are no worse than the warlords the US supports), al Qaeda etc. ?

[tyr_13]

Right, the US has supported/supports bad people, therefore, it can never fight against bad people. This makes sense, if the US is a cartoon villain.

[MattusMaximus]

Right, the US has supported/supports bad people, therefore, it can never fight against bad people. This makes sense, if the US is a cartoon villain.

You forgot to laugh evilly while twirling the end of your moustache.

[quarky]

In the last few decades, the U.S. has shown itself to be a serious threat to the well being of the entire planet.

We can laugh it off.
Or,

We can deal with it.

[tyr_13]

Oh, the US is a cartoon villain. Now I get it.

[Darth Rotor]

In the last few decades, the U.S. has shown itself to be a serious threat to the well being of the entire planet.

We can laugh it off.
Or,

We can deal with it.
Or, we can kill off half the planet and render the threat moot. For a while.

Not saying I advocate that policy, I don't, but it is an option within our capability.

DR

[T.A.M.]

Well, it sure beats the doctrine of invading countries one doesn't FEEL are a threat. For that matter, it also beats the doctrine of not invading countries one FEELS are a threat. But what would you suggest? When one state funds, trains, equips, or otherwise sponsors a guerrilla army for the purpose of attacking another state, what would you call it? A feeling?

If a Country attacks you, you attack it back. If an organization attacks you, you attack it back. That is why I was ok with the Afghanistan War. It is why most of the world supported that war.

The Iraq War, the first war following the Bush Doctrine was different. Yes they used the "WMD" line, and even that was proven to be BS. Let us say, however, that it was proven true. Is the USA going to invade every country with WMDs?

I guess it is a difference of opinion, but I always assumed that civilized nations only warred these days, when attacked first. Preemptive War is a very dangerous slippery slope.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I can't believe I am having a discussion with people who even contemplate military imperialism as a valid option. Have I been transported back a hundred years?

Oih...

TAM

[Darth Rotor]

If a Country attacks you, you attack it back. If an organization attacks you, you attack it back. That is why I was ok with the Afghanistan War. It is why most of the world supported that war.

I see, you feel one is required to cede the initiative. You have just advocated for aggression as a viable policy. None will stop you if you choose to be an aggressor, they'll wait till you've slaughtered a few (thousand?) and then maybe act. This is a key problem of the UN as a collective security organization. It acts as an enabler for aggression.

Not well played.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I can't believe I am having a discussion with people who even contemplate military imperialism as a valid option.
You aren't using a very accurate term here, so of course you are arguing with a phantasm.

DR

[T.A.M.]

No worse then the suggested alternative above; going in when some *********** hawks decide they wanna go to war, and decide they have had enough with the "actions" of country X, or decide they wanna get revenge for daddy, and use fear and an unrelated terrorist attack as justification.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

You aren't using a very accurate term here, so of course you are arguing with a phantasm.

DR

well remove the word military then.

TAM:)

[geni]

I see, you feel one is required to cede the initiative. You have just advocated for aggression as a viable policy. None will stop you if you choose to be an aggressor, they'll wait till you've slaughtered a few (thousand?) and then maybe act.

In practical terms any industrialised nation could inflict a few thousand casulties on pretty much any other nation (new zealand might be a bit tricky) within 24 hours if it really wanted to. As a result premptive force is not that effective a way of dealing with such issues. Making it clear that your response will make what happened to carthage look minor may be a more effective aproach.

[geni]

No worse then the suggested alternative above; going in when some *********** hawks decide they wanna go to war, and decide they have had enough with the "actions" of country X, or decide they wanna get revenge for daddy, and use fear and an unrelated terrorist attack as justification.

And I would argue that imperialism is more valid than that aproach. Well mostly anyway did anyone ever work out why we invaded Tibet?

[Darth Rotor]

In practical terms any industrialised nation could inflict a few thousand casulties on pretty much any other nation (new zealand might be a bit tricky) within 24 hours if it really wanted to. As a result premptive force is not that effective a way of dealing with such issues. Making it clear that your response will make what happened to carthage look minor may be a more effective aproach.
Deterrence is only effective if credible. But it's a good way to work the problem, if you can make the threat of force credible.

DR

[theprestige]

I can't believe I am having a discussion with people who even contemplate military imperialism as a valid option. Have I been transported back a hundred years?
Unless you're having a discussion with geni that I'm not aware of, I don't think you are.

[JihadJane]

Oh, the US is a cartoon villain. Now I get it.

A comforting thought.

In fact, the US is a real, rogue state, underwriting global insecurity and international lawlessness.


Right, the US has supported/supports bad people, therefore, it can never fight against bad people. This makes sense, if the US is a cartoon villain.

US warmakers make war against bad people because, they claim, their cartoon enemy is the 'WORST OF THE WORST".

[quarky]

The Axis of Evil is right out of a comic book.

The "God" part of the equation has gotten more abstract, though.
Godless commies and god-fearing Muslims make strange bed-fellows.

[Darth Rotor]

Godless commies and god-fearing Muslims make strange bed-fellows.
They had a war against each other in Afghanistan, Soviet era, so I'd say they were not bedfellows.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

US warmakers make war against bad people because, they claim, their cartoon enemy is the 'WORST OF THE WORST".
A guess here: you have a relative who is a Jihadi. Is that what this is all about?

DR

[quarky]

They had a war against each other in Afghanistan, Soviet era, so I'd say they were not bedfellows.

DR

True, but things are changing. In the "axis", there's both god and no god states...both evil. I could imagine atheists and Muslims joining forces against Christians.

[Darth Rotor]

True, but things are changing. In the "axis", there's both god and no god states...both evil. I could imagine atheists and Muslims joining forces against Christians.
I suppose an alliance of convenience might be arranged. I'll worry when "Nation of Atheism" president Dawkins starts mobilizing his battalions. :cool:

[tyr_13]

A comforting thought.

In fact, the US is a real, rogue state, underwriting global insecurity and international lawlessness.




US warmakers make war against bad people because, they claim, their cartoon enemy is the 'WORST OF THE WORST".

*twirls mustache*

Mwahahaha. Now I understand why we deserved 9/11! If it weren't for that, we'd have started a war by now! Mwahahahahaha.... oh wait...

[geni]

True, but things are changing. In the "axis", there's both god and no god states...both evil. I could imagine atheists and Muslims joining forces against Christians.

The axis are not allies. Iran and Iraq fought quite a serious war back in the 80s and North Korea's only relationship with the others is that it is prepared to sell them things. North korea is prepared to sell things like missiles to almost anyone.

[Darth Rotor]

The axis are not allies.
(Joke about a famous board game stifled. :D)

That is the first thing that struck me when that "Axis of Evil" line hit the world's airwaves. The "axis of evil" isn't an axis.
Iran and Iraq fought quite a serious war back in the 80s and North Korea's only relationship with the others is that it is prepared to sell them things. North korea is prepared to sell things like missiles to almost anyone.
Aye.

[quarky]

The axis are not allies. Iran and Iraq fought quite a serious war back in the 80s and North Korea's only relationship with the others is that it is prepared to sell them things. North korea is prepared to sell things like missiles to almost anyone.

Former enemies occasionally team up to fight a larger threat.
Its not hard to imagine how these countries see us as a larger threat.
Which is what worries me about Afghanistan. We'll ('mericans) be about spent, militarily, economically, and public support-wise.

Remember how we joined forces against Hitler, in spite of our past squabbles?
Some countries see us as Hitler. That's what we might not comprehend.

[JihadJane]

*twirls mustache*

Mwahahaha. Now I understand why we deserved 9/11! If it weren't for that, we'd have started a war by now! Mwahahahahaha.... oh wait...

Wait for what?

A guess here: you have a relative who is a Jihadi. Is that what this is all about?

DR

Perhaps you have been reading too many cartoons.

;)

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps you have been reading too many cartoons.

Not lately. When I see an ax being ground, I sometimes try to figure out why.

DR

[Praktik]

The 'let's improve the plight of Afghan women' part was always just an opportunistic propaganda adjunct. I don't remember any of the west's top politicians being concerned about Afghan women when the Taliban types were blowing up Russians.

QFT

[quadraginta]

They had a war against each other in Afghanistan, Soviet era, so I'd say they were not bedfellows.

DR


You're absolutely right, of course, but I don't think that religion was the issue they were fighting over.

[Darth Rotor]

You're absolutely right, of course, but I don't think that religion was the issue they were fighting over.
The place of religion, and its impact on society, was a part of that fight, and a part of what fueled the resistance to the new state the Sov backed faction was trying to create/craft.

DR

[Arcade22]

I sure as hell don't want my people fighting in the Middle East just because some towelheads are unable to establish something that resembles a civilized country.

[quadraginta]

The place of religion, and its impact on society, was a part of that fight, and a part of what fueled the resistance to the new state the Sov backed faction was trying to create/craft.

DR


All true as well, but this part, "The place of religion, and its impact on society ..." would be an element, regardless.

My take on the events goes more to this part of your statement though.

"... resistance to the new state the Sov backed faction ..."

In the absence of that there would have been no Soviet troops in Afghanistan to begin with.

From what I've read support among the Soviet Union's decision makers was shaky at best. My understanding is that if President Taraki hadn't been something of a personal pet of Brezhnev's then they probably wouldn't have gone in anyway. They would have just bought out the new boss.

[quarky]

Not lately. When I see an ax being ground, I sometimes try to figure out why.

DR

Nicely put.

(Crap, you aren't mellowing with age, are you?)

[Darth Rotor]

(Crap, you aren't mellowing with age, are you?)
I am trying to do a better job of friendly and lively, even when it hurts. A work in progress. The zingers will still be available, of course, when the occasion demands.
I sure as hell don't want my people fighting in the Middle East just because some towelheads are unable to establish something that resembles a civilized country.
Arcade, the US took that attitude after the Sovs left, and one of the unfortunate outcomes of that was Al Qaeda finding a nice, supportive regime to let them hide out and train and such. While I am not going to proclaim that the war there will remove that risk, there is some rational strategic reasoning behind preempting a return to Taliban power, both for our benefit and for the benefit of our new "friend" Pakistan. The US has warmed with India nicely in the past ten years. The US has been working on warming up relations with Pakistan for the past five to ten years.

Why would we do that, warm to two habitual enemies?

Well, see what our being friends with Greece and Turkey for about fifty years, via NATO, has done for both of those nations, and hatibual enemies: Prevented a war.

Afghanistan, though a problem of its own on a number of levels, is also linked to a larger regional security matter.

@ quad: yes. :)

DR

[JihadJane]

Afghanistan, though a problem of its own on a number of levels, is also linked to a larger regional security matter.



DR


It is linked to the doomed, megalomaniac desire for global hegemony of another country's rulers thousands of miles away.

Linked below is an interview with Phyllis Bennis, Senior Analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer. She has a new book coming out called Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer:


'US no business in the middle of Afghan civil war' (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4561)


'Afghan war not about self-defence' (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4565)


'India, Pakistan and a regional solution' (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4568)

[Darth Rotor]

It is linked to the doomed, megalomaniac desire for global hegemony of another country's rulers thousands of miles away.
Desire is a rather silly descriptive there, since the US has been a global hegemon for some decades. (Maybe you ought to read Mead, he's pretty succinct on that part).

The point of staying there, after the initial "you deserve this for helping in the attack on our country and harboring its perps," is a good point for discussion. The general aim is prevention by creating (if it can be done, opinions differ on that) a less likely haven for extranational terrorist groups, and a "better" country that is more likely to join the community of nations as other than a failed state.

That intention may or may not be achievable.

'US no business in the middle of Afghan civil war' (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4561)
VP Biden seems to agree with her.
'Afghan war not about self-defence' (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4565)
It was initially about retaliation for an attack, and to unseat the government that approved of the Al Qaeda operating with impunity from its territory for years before the attack. You will recall that President Clinton tried to curtail the Al Q training capability via Tomahawk attacks, with little success. The statement you make via quote is false. See Article 51, among others.

'India, Pakistan and a regional solution' (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4568)[/QUOTE]
Appears to be worth a look, thanks for the link.

DR

[Greatest I am]

I see Afghanistan as a piece of our overall drug war.

I find it ironic that we are loosing the prohibition war at home and think we can do something at the world level when that level is more corrupt than our own corrupt higher echelons.

Prohibition has never worked in history.

Are we fighting ourselves?

The Canadian Royal Commission Report on psychotropic drugs would say that yes, we are using the wrong approach.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

One corner of the axis of evil, if there is such a thing, would be the arms industry.

The U S holy grail.

Not to center out the U S, the west made them what they are today.
All western nations are within that axis via the arms industry.

Regards
DL

[dudalb]

I see Afghanistan as a piece of our overall drug war.

I find it ironic that we are loosing the prohibition war at home and think we can do something at the world level when that level is more corrupt than our own corrupt higher echelons.

Prohibition has never worked in history.

Are we fighting ourselves?

The Canadian Royal Commission Report on psychotropic drugs would say that yes, we are using the wrong approach.

Regards
DL

You make no sense whatsoever.
The Opium Traffic is a minor issue vis a vis the US presence in Afghanistan. It's a non factor.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry this is from a while back. . . .

Is any mistreatment of women necessarily a function of government? As I noted above, women sometimes get mistreated (rape is a bit beyond "mistreatment" IMO :mad: ) in my country. Is that due to the government being screwed up and in need of change?

Here is what UW's earlier point almost looks like, transplanted to my country:

"Oh dear, someone got raped, and someone covered it up. Get rid of President Obama." (Granted, if someone close to President Obama was involved, and the President covered for him, then perhaps that last sentence would be in order).


According to the link in the OP, it wasn't just covered up by "someone" but rather by the government we're supporting. So I think your parenthetical analogy is more accurate.

Anyway, I personally haven't heard the mistreatment of women used as a justification for our presence in Afghanistan. If it were, there are several other countries we ought be invading.

I think it's a valid point, as I said, that if people are using the mistreatment of women as a justification for our presence, we should make it part of the mission to eradicate that mistreatment. (If it's not part of our mission there, then it shouldn't be cited as justification for our presence.)

[tyr_13]

I've heard the mistreatment of women being used as proof as to just how evil the Taliban is, which is true.

[quixotecoyote]

I've heard the mistreatment of women being used as proof as to just how evil the Taliban is, which is true.

But, as noted previously, that same stuff is happening under OUR bastards too.

[tyr_13]

But, as noted previously, that same stuff is happening under OUR bastards too.

Right, but that's just to illustrate how bad they are, in addition to being valid targets otherwise. It's not an official reason, but an added bonus often tacked on.

[JihadJane]

How is allying with rapists and murderers a bonus?

[funk de fino]

How is allying with rapists and murderers a bonus?

Says the 911CT and 7/7 CT believer!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right, but that's just to illustrate how bad they are, in addition to being valid targets otherwise. It's not an official reason, but an added bonus often tacked on.

But the point I'm making (agreeing at least partly with the OP) is that you can't tack that on as a bonus if it's not part of our mission there.

If we plan to do nothing to improve the plight of women, and continue to endorse a government that will condone rape, it's not valid to claim the mistreatment of women under the Taliban as justification--even in part-- of our presence there.

[Kestrel]

But the point I'm making (agreeing at least partly with the OP) is that you can't tack that on as a bonus if it's not part of our mission there.

If we plan to do nothing to improve the plight of women, and continue to endorse a government that will condone rape, it's not valid to claim the mistreatment of women under the Taliban as justification--even in part-- of our presence there.

Seems to me that a difference in degree would count.

The bastards we support don't conform to developed nation standards in treatment of women, but the Taliban are much worse.

[quixotecoyote]

Seems to me that a difference in degree would count.

The bastards we support don't conform to developed nation standards in treatment of women, but the Taliban are much worse.

Are you sure about that? The impression I get is that the status of women got a boost right after we went in, but then it spiraled right back down.


http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0734-e.htm#source23

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seems to me that a difference in degree would count.

The bastards we support don't conform to developed nation standards in treatment of women, but the Taliban are much worse.

Are you sure about that? The impression I get is that the status of women got a boost right after we went in, but then it spiraled right back down.


http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0734-e.htm#source23

And my point isn't about what just happened to occur. Perhaps nearly any regime that took the place of the Taliban would have a slightly less bad record of mistreating women.

If improving women's rights isn't part of our mission, then you can't say that that improvement (assuming there is a slight improvement) is justification for our presence there.

In legal terms, I'd say a de facto improvement doesn't make this a legitimate justification of our presence there. It really has to be part of our mission for it to be used to justify our presence.

And, if it's part of our mission, we're bound to try to make things better on this issue.

[Greatest I am]

You make no sense whatsoever.
The Opium Traffic is a minor issue vis a vis the US presence in Afghanistan. It's a non factor.

Lets see.

The last what was it 5 deaths, included two DEA agents.

It is a drug war.
Take opium out of the equation and the war ends.

Regards
DL

[Darth Rotor]

It is a drug war. Take opium out of the equation and the war ends.

Don't think so, even though the drug trafficking is part of the overall environment. Your assertion is unfortunately overly simplistic, reductionist, and indifferent to all the other social and political elements that are bound up in this (now) civil war.

DR

[Greatest I am]

Don't think so, even though the drug trafficking is part of the overall environment. Your assertion is unfortunately overly simplistic, reductionist, and indifferent to all the other social and political elements that are bound up in this (now) civil war.

DR

Perhaps.

Where do you think the Taliban get their operating capital?

Regards
DL

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps.

Where do you think the Taliban get their operating capital?

Regards
DL
Wherver they can get their hands on it. If the illicit opium trade is one revenue stream, I sense that they consider the ends to justify the means.

DR