Is America wasting its time in afghanistan (Iraq, middle east, enemies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean when you look at that country, you realize that they are the least developed country in all of asia and likely the world. Its not they don't have the opportunity america is pouring billions into their sinc the 1980s. They don't want to change. At least in Iraq there is hope, some iraqi people are willing to join the 21st century. But afganistan seems to be a culture that just wants to be left alone and live in the the 6th century forever. Maybe we should just leave.
We haven't been pouring money in since 1980. We used to send them a lot of arms and weaponry to fight the soviets, but we didn't give them money.
I believe that we need to stay in country, its a rough place no doubt about it. What they call roads, you'd call, well, dirt. I'm not talking about dirt roads in the US, I'm just talking about, that looks like tracks heading that way kind of roads. If you strayed off the roads, you'd hit a soviet land mine. Its been 7 years since I was in country, but it was a very backwards place.
The people had a real fear, and I'm sure they do, that America would just pull up stakes and leave. Thats all that has ever happened in this country. The locals were mostly afraid of the Taliban, and to a large part they still are. The Taliban are all around them, all the time. They are part of the people, in the community, and have been there for a hundred years. We've only been there for 8, and most of the "conquering" armies that have taken the region leave in about this time frame.
What we need to do is to work with the Taliban, because they aren't Al Qaeda. There are some radicals in the group, but most are willing to talk to us. If we can negotiate with them, and maybe pay them off, then we've got some real hope of getting this country back on a some what normal road. This is what we did in Iraq, but the difference is, Iraq has a industry, Afghans industry is poppy growing. We are going to have to back off the "can't grow poppy" stance, and I believe we have.
I mean when you look at that country, you realize that they are the least developed country in all of asia and likely the world. Its not they don't have the opportunity america is pouring billions into their sinc the 1980s. They don't want to change. At least in Iraq there is hope, some iraqi people are willing to join the 21st century. But afganistan seems to be a culture that just wants to be left alone and live in the the 6th century forever. Maybe we should just leave.
You have misrepresented both Afghanistan and Iraq.
By most accounts, Afghanistan is a virtual prison, in which Taliban men have designated themselves to be the privileged guards, and all other Afghans to be the inmates, to be controlled and abused by the Taliban with impunity. Afghans DO want to change, they want to become an Afghan nation, living according to their cultural traditions. But there is a dictatorial corps of brutal misfits making life miserable for everyone but themselves. In my opinion, a sufficiently large international force needs to go into Afghanistan, arrest every member of the Taliban, and hold them accountable for the humanitarian harm they have done. And then let the Afghans have whatever kind of country they want to have, with neither the Taliban nor the White House trying to force them to be something else.
Iraq, on the other hand, was a dynamic and well organized modern nation under Saddam. During Saddam's years, Iraq was among the world's most rapidly advancing nations, both socially and economically. Iraq was exemplary in advancing women's rights, public education, industrialization, agricultural modernization, a large middle class, international trade, a secular state within Islam, and eliminating poverty. All Iraqi people were already on the brink of the 21st century, before shock and awe ended that forever. The only people in Iraq who hated and feared Saddam were the revolutionary enemies of his regime.
Afghanistan was a nation that needed desperately to be changed, and the US went in with a single childish goal, and accomplished nothing. Iraq was exactly the kind of state the west would love to see in the Muslim world, except that the dictator who brought it all about had a bit of a heavy hand. And the Americans threw the baby out with the bathwater, and completely destroyed everything Iraq ever was and ever could have been, and our own credibility along with it.
In short yes.
The people in that area dont see things as we do. Like it or not they use violence & intimidation openly & freely in their society. In my view thats fine, its their country & I couldn't care less if they kill each other.
Painting Iraq & Saddam as some Oasis is rediculous. Certainly they were moving ahead technologically & if you were lucky enough to be born in the right sect of the right religion you were good to go. But pointing at clean prosperous cities & ignoring tens of thousands of atrocious murders trying to validate a sociopaths regime is utter foolishness.
But all that aside, IMO we are wasting money we dont have in both countries.
We should give Iraq a bill for services rendered & pull out of both cesspools.
Far as credibility, who cares. Its about time we started worrying more about where we are headed instead of how the rest of the world thinks. We became the best country in the world by looking inside & doing what needed doing. Ruined it all in the last half of the 20th century by getting involved with the people we fought to be seperate from.
In short yes.
The people in that area dont see things as we do. Like it or not they use violence & intimidation openly & freely in their society. In my view thats fine, its their country & I couldn't care less if they kill each other.
Painting Iraq & Saddam as some Oasis is rediculous. Certainly they were moving ahead technologically & if you were lucky enough to be born in the right sect of the right religion you were good to go. But pointing at clean prosperous cities & ignoring tens of thousands of atrocious murders trying to validate a sociopaths regime is utter foolishness.
But all that aside, IMO we are wasting money we dont have in both countries.
We should give Iraq a bill for services rendered & pull out of both cesspools.
Far as credibility, who cares. Its about time we started worrying more about where we are headed instead of how the rest of the world thinks. We became the best country in the world by looking inside & doing what needed doing. Ruined it all in the last half of the 20th century by getting involved with the people we fought to be seperate from.
I pretty much agree with your short analysis. I can only add that in our new determination that everyone HAS to 'like' us, we've suceeded in LOSING much of the respect we once enjoyed.
The Third World is a tough place. You can't buy people's 'love'...or even their 'like'. Those will come LATER, after you show that you believe in your own principles and respect YOURSELF. At that point, those inclined to agree with your agenda will 'like' you...while those who don't, will at least RESPECT you.
In some ways, we've lost much ground in BOTH groups. We've demonstrated to the world that we don't respect ourselves...and they've been more than happy to follow our example....now, THEY don't respect us, either....and few people can "like" something (or some nation) that they can't respect.
You have misrepresented both Afghanistan and Iraq.
By most accounts, Afghanistan is a virtual prison, in which Taliban men have designated themselves to be the privileged guards, and all other Afghans to be the inmates, to be controlled and abused by the Taliban with impunity. Afghans DO want to change, they want to become an Afghan nation, living according to their cultural traditions. But there is a dictatorial corps of brutal misfits making life miserable for everyone but themselves. In my opinion, a sufficiently large international force needs to go into Afghanistan, arrest every member of the Taliban, and hold them accountable for the humanitarian harm they have done. And then let the Afghans have whatever kind of country they want to have, with neither the Taliban nor the White House trying to force them to be something else.
Iraq, on the other hand, was a dynamic and well organized modern nation under Saddam. During Saddam's years, Iraq was among the world's most rapidly advancing nations, both socially and economically. Iraq was exemplary in advancing women's rights, public education, industrialization, agricultural modernization, a large middle class, international trade, a secular state within Islam, and eliminating poverty. All Iraqi people were already on the brink of the 21st century, before shock and awe ended that forever. The only people in Iraq who hated and feared Saddam were the revolutionary enemies of his regime.
Afghanistan was a nation that needed desperately to be changed, and the US went in with a single childish goal, and accomplished nothing. Iraq was exactly the kind of state the west would love to see in the Muslim world, except that the dictator who brought it all about had a bit of a heavy hand. And the Americans threw the baby out with the bathwater, and completely destroyed everything Iraq ever was and ever could have been, and our own credibility along with it.
The only people that loved saddam was the sunni; others who where his victims hated him just as people hated hitler in his time. Saddam and his son's where tyrants just has hitler was.No one could oppose or even be suspected by them and that was clear when his politcal friends suspect were shot.Many i Iraq wree edcuated before he came to power really.
What I see here is the same sort of stereotyping and generalization that I see on many a thread. It's the logical flaw that I see more than any other on this forum. I'm not immune to it; I've used it on certain threads when I've felt very emotional about something. It's that emotion that should have told me that my argument was bound to be crap.
When you say 'they' don't think like we do, 'they' don't want freedom, 'they' don't want to change, whom are you talking about? Everybody? Isn’t that a little absurd? You are arguing from a subset to the superset. You are in essence saying that because you see four swans in your backyard that are all black, all swans must be black around the globe.
There is an element as you describe--undoubtedly. But is it generally the case? I don't think so. I've often wondered what would happen if some all-powerful force were to say, okay mister Taliban, the country is yours. But before you assume power, every man woman and child will be given the option of staying and living under your coveted sharia law, or being whisked away to live in a free and peaceful place (wherever--doesn't matter for my experiment).
I wonder how many would willingly remain? I have a feeling that there would be a group of black-robed morons reigning over a largely vacant nation.
So, when you generalize like that, I don’t think you are painting a realistic picture. It’s like saying everyone in the US is a white supremacist neo-nazi. Sure there are some in our country, but they are certainly not everyone in the country.
What I see here is the same sort of stereotyping and generalization that I see on many a thread. It's the logical flaw that I see more than any other on this forum. I'm not immune to it; I've used it on certain threads when I've felt very emotional about something. It's that emotion that should have told me that my argument was bound to be crap.
When you say 'they' don't think like we do, 'they' don't want freedom, 'they' don't want to change, whom are you talking about? Everybody? Isn’t that a little absurd? You are arguing from a subset to the superset. You are in essence saying that because you see four swans in your backyard that are all black, all swans must be black around the globe.
There is an element as you describe--undoubtedly. But is it generally the case? I don't think so. I've often wondered what would happen if some all-powerful force were to say, okay mister Taliban, the country is yours. But before you assume power, every man woman and child will be given the option of staying and living under your coveted sharia law, or being whisked away to live in a free and peaceful place (wherever--doesn't matter for my experiment).
I wonder how many would willingly remain? I have a feeling that there would be a group of black-robed morons reigning over a largely vacant nation.
So, when you generalize like that, I don’t think you are painting a realistic picture. It’s like saying everyone in the US is a white supremacist neo-nazi. Sure there are some in our country, but they are certainly not everyone in the country.
Good points, but not a complete analogy, I'm afraid. If you see 'four black swans' in your yard...from YOUR point of view, it doesn't matter if the other swans are white, chartreuse, or purple. If those four black swans are in your yard, and are keeping the OTHER swans out...then what you're dealing with is black swans. The others out there, for your purposes, are a 'moot point'.
If indeed The Taliban is not representative of the Afghan people..(and I'm sure that in our liberal, western definition of 'representative', they're NOT), to some degree, that's beside the point. If you want to "deal" with Afghanistan...or "go there"...and if the Taliban 'hold sway'....and if the rest of the population either WILL not, CAN not, or doesn't WANT TO resist the Taliban...or if their dislike of Western occupiers is STRONGER than their dislike of the Taliban...or if they are simply too intimidated to 'speak up'....then you, by going into Afghanistan, WILL be dealing with The Taliban, like it or not. Your only other option is to NOT go into Afghanistan. There's no third choice, given the conditions in the country.
Your take on 'what if' is good...."If" the locals had the choice, would they toss out the Taliban? Perhaps so...maybe not. At this point, though, for us as 'outsiders', the fact is that these people have NOT tossed out the Taliban...that's the reality we're dealing with. Several people have mentioned that, if they INSISTED, Afghan women could become the 'social equal' of Afghan males. That's probably true....but at this point, they have yet to "insist"..so the reality is that Afghan women continue as 'second class citizens'..whether we like it, or agree with it, or not.
Your "white supremacist neo-nazi" analogy likewise falls short. Certainly all Americans don't fit that description....only a tiny 'part of a percentage'...and outsiders dealing with US society therefore have no reason to fear 'neo-nazis'. However...IF such odious characters formed a LARGER part of the US population...and IF they succeeded in 'intimidating' and brow-beating the REST of us to the point that they began 'running the show', and 'setting the rules'...then yes, foreigners contemplating visiting the US would have every reason to fear dealing with a "US white-supremacist neo-nazi" culture...and this would be true, and a 'fact of life', regardless of whether or not 'the rest of us Americans' LIKED the neo-nazis, HATED them, or were simply intimidated by them. In any event, for the outsider, any attempt to deal with the US would involve dealing with "white supremacist neo-nazis", and from THEIR point of view, it wouldn't matter whether such people formed only a small portion of our society; for if THEY were 'running the show', then THEY (the ne-nazis) are the 'locals' whom all outsiders would have to 'deal with'. For all practical purposes, in that situation, foreigners might well remark that "the US is a white-supremacist neo-nazi country". For them, that would be true,
Wasting our time? Well, yes and no. The religious dogma that has caused us all the grief is not ever going away. I do believe that the people of the region want to see change, but they do not want a western style 'democracy' either. The concept is alien to them. Whatever govt takes the reins over there is going to answer to the Mullahs, one way or another, at the end of the day. 'Separation of church and state' is not something the Afghan people understand , or even want. A VERY small percentage perhaps, but taken as a whole...not. They wish to relax the Sharia crap a bit, I'm sure, but I'm only theorizing there. They need to be able to decide this for themselves, and that should be the focus of our efforts there. To let them do so without fear of some Imam sending out death squads to convince them how they should decide. The Taliban has all the weapons, and a semi organized force to use them. They are integrated into the population and cannot be distinguished from any other Afghan. Thats a problem. The people are afraid to say anything because they don't know who is listening. So, how do you deal with that? Not by force of arms to be sure.
I believe there are ways of doing things when there are egregious abuses of human dignity.
In Iraq, we might have been able to accomplish all that we wanted by sending over a couple of thousand well-trained and equipped Special Services forces, driving into Iraq in rental vans from Kuwait airport, and announcing that they are there to observe the affairs of the Iraqi government to defend the rights of the people against arbitrary excesses. If they are obstructed, they can say "We can call for backup". I strongly expect that Mr. Saddam's support would have folded like a tent. By now, there would have been free and fair elections in Iraq, and Saddam might have very well been re-elected. As he might be today, if he were alive to seek another term.
This would perhaps also work against the Taliban, but they are, by all accounts, quite a bit more intransigent than Saddam, who, when all is said and done, was a more reasonable and visionary man than most of the petty dictators, including those puppets put in place by the Americans. Our own intransigence about the Kuwait mistake cost us an opportunity to have a valuable ally in Saddam.
Saddam could have, with a snap of the fingers, turned Iraq into a model state. He might well have done so, had he not felt that the world was ganging up on him. Without the ill-advised Kuwait adventure, Iraq would today be a glittering jewel of rational statehood in the Middle East, perhaps still led by a moderate Saddam. That is not the case in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is somewhat amorphous and possesses a great deal of inertia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
