Afghanistan

[classicman]

wiki said so?

Honestly, I didn't read the links, I was just being a smartass.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There are places with just as much terror and lack of freedoms yet we are not doing anything there.

There are a number of places we are doing something, it's just not in the news. The main difference is, each of those places had a central government, and an army, we are working with. Afghanistan is a whole different critter.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

There are a number of places we are doing something, it's just not in the news. The main difference is, each of those places had a central government, and an army, we are working with. Afghanistan is a whole different critter.

Agreed. I can name 10 places at least where we are actively involved.

[classicman]

Out of curiosity what do you guys think about Obama sending in another 30,000 troops? IIRC many were very upset that Bush escalated the troop numbers. Now that Obama has done essentially the same thing, do you all feel differently about it or ... ?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Out of curiosity what do you guys think about Obama sending in another 30,000 troops? IIRC many were very upset that Bush escalated the troop numbers. Now that Obama has done essentially the same thing, do you all feel differently about it or ... ?

Politics pure and simple. If he didn't do it then he would lose much face. We are already in so he is not risking much politically by sending more troops. I am not sure the troops would agree with that assumption.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Out of curiosity what do you guys think about Obama sending in another 30,000 troops? IIRC many were very upset that Bush escalated the troop numbers. Now that Obama has done essentially the same thing, do you all feel differently about it or ... ?

People were upset when Bush sent more troops to Iraq. People were upset about anything to do with a war with Iraq, because it is not a justifyable war.

If we're going to do a war, we should do it overwhelmingly. I'm all for sending more troops. I believe it will make it safer for all the allied troops that are there.

What the US does well is invade. We don't do occupation well. We ought to invade a country and immediatley pull out. We shouldn't occupy or rebuild. Rebuilding only teaches other nations that if they need new infrastructure, they should fly some jets into American skyscrapers. After we invade and pull out, we monitor the response - if the country doesn't change, we can always reinvade, and pull out again. It's war interruptus.

[TheMercenary]

Frontline: Obama's War

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...=top5#morelink

[ZenGum]

I just want to say, I disagree with the idea that Afghanistan can be a strong point or asset in any kind of global political struggle a la Kipling's Great Game. I think it is a liability that will bleed any foreign power that moves into it, until they get tired of the bleeding and go home with loss of prestige, resources, opportunities, and human lives.
The only time the west ever got a benefit from it was when the soviets got tangled up there, and we supported the anti-soviet fighters; but even that turned around and bit us on the bum 15 years later.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I just want to say, I disagree with the idea that Afghanistan can be a strong point or asset in any kind of global political struggle a la Kipling's Great Game. I think it is a liability that will bleed any foreign power that moves into it, until they get tired of the bleeding and go home with loss of prestige, resources, opportunities, and human lives.

I wasn't implying that we are attempting to make a colonial state out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan, while not nearly as important as Pakistan, will most likely play a role in future events. Your and Merc's point is strong, and I agree with it, but sometimes our government can be hard headed.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I think Pierce's thinking is a little too limited, too early-twentieth-century in its framing. He's not thinking in terms of the dramatic globalization that is the salient feature of the world's economy. Globalization makes talk of a nation not being "self sufficient/sustainable" moot.

From what I understand, global capitalism is based on the assumption of sufficient global resources. So, if resources are insufficient, we will regress towards a more mercantile mindset assuming we want to keep the same standards of living or don't progress on our needs.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

From what I understand, global capitalism is based on the assumption of sufficient global resources. So, if resources are insufficient, we will regress towards a more mercantile mindset assuming we want to keep the same standards of living or don't progress on our needs.

That looks like a pretty big if. Dr. Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome were extrapolating resource exhaustion circa 1980-85. Didn't even come close to happening; their model had its defects. All that really seems to be going on is increased viability of mining lower-grade ores, extracting more and more difficult oil, and so on across the board. Start accessing the Solar System, and iron among other things gets rather suddenly very very abundant.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Arghandab & The Battle for Kandahar

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

That looks like a pretty big if. Dr. Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome were extrapolating resource exhaustion circa 1980-85. Didn't even come close to happening; their model had its defects. All that really seems to be going on is increased viability of mining lower-grade ores, extracting more and more difficult oil, and so on across the board. Start accessing the Solar System, and iron among other things gets rather suddenly very very abundant.

There is plenty of iron (and coal) still in the Earth's crust.

Usable water, farmable land, catchable fish stocks ... we're getting squeezed for those already.

[TheMercenary]

I must agree. The idea that Afghanistan is somehow pivotable to having power and influence in the region is a huge overstatement. Given the countries history I doubt anything meaningful or long lasting will come out of a long term obligation of pseudo-nation building will work out for us in the long run. If there is any place we should step back and re-evalutate our long term goals I would think it is here. This little surge will have but a temporizing effect and in 10 or 20 years it will be just like it was before, fuedal and generally living like they have for the last 200.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I think Pierce's thinking is a little too limited, too early-twentieth-century in its framing. He's not thinking in terms of the dramatic globalization that is the salient feature of the world's economy. Globalization makes talk of a nation not being "self sufficient/sustainable" moot.

What this globalization does always mean is we will continue our national policy of insistence upon free trade, everywhere, always, and to the maximum possible, just as we've done since before 1783.

[xoxoxoBruce]

This little surge will have but a temporizing effect and in 10 or 20 years it will be just like it was before, fuedal and generally living like they have for the last 200.

That temporizing effect is all that's expected, that's why a withdrawal was included in the plan. A chance for McCrystal to execute his plan to take Afghanistan out of the picture, while Pakistan gets their shit together. McCrystal may succeed, but I've no faith in Pakistan.
If through some miracle Pakistan does succeed in taming the border region, I doubt anyone cares what happens in Afghanistan after that. Let the taliban control the hinterlands, if we perceive them to becoming a problem for us, as in terrorist training camps, we have Predators.