Solving Afghanistan?

[araz]

Why not just leave it alone, though?

Yes, there'll be bloodshed for a decade perhaps, terrible as it is, but no society in ths history of mankind evolved without bloodshed in the initial phases.

There was a semblance of medieval laws and discipline when a unifying force had stabilized Afghanistan (even if they were ideologically from the Stone Age). The point is that stabilization was achieved, the next stage is to allow the society to evolve. Foreign forces redistributing the power and control to favoured minorities is going to result in more bloodshed once those forces leave.

Personally I think if Afghanistan is left well alone, it will evolve. Ideologies do not remain stagnant, they rapidly fluctuate. If the Taliban ideology could be propogated in a decade during Soviet occupation, another ideology could also be.

Within a century, even less, Afghanistan can be a properous country if it is allowed to evolve.

All that we hope is a negotiated settlement of the Afghan issue with inclusion of all the relevant parties and an installed government set up after an election under observers. we can only hope after that, the political forces will take over and stabilize the country. This is the best possible solution and probably least bound to cause massive bloodletting. But then having known the Afghans and their history, who knows. One thing is for sure, continued occupation of Afghanistan is going to be counterptroductive both for the locals and the occupiers.
WaSalam
Araz

 

[zraver]

Why not just leave it alone, though?

Yes, there'll be bloodshed for a decade perhaps, terrible as it is, but no society in ths history of mankind evolved without bloodshed in the initial phases.

There was a semblance of medieval laws and discipline when a unifying force had stabilized Afghanistan (even if they were ideologically from the Stone Age). The point is that stabilization was achieved, the next stage is to allow the society to evolve. Foreign forces redistributing the power and control to favoured minorities is going to result in more bloodshed once those forces leave.

Personally I think if Afghanistan is left well alone, it will evolve. Ideologies do not remain stagnant, they rapidly fluctuate. If the Taliban ideology could be propogated in a decade during Soviet occupation, another ideology could also be.

Within a century, even less, Afghanistan can be a properous country if it is allowed to evolve.

The problem you seem to be forgetting is the Taliban's support for groups that decided to wage war on the rest of the world. You can find Taliban links in the Kashmir conflict, Egypt, Suadi Arabia, Chechnya, Dagestan, attacks on America, operations in Malaysia and the Philippines etc. When the Taliban cast its lot with Al Queda and Arab jihadist it made itself part of them and part of their war on everything non-wahabist Sunni. That they made this choice is not in the least surprising- Saudi Wahabist had poured uncounted millions into the madrassas that created the Taliban in the first place.

The Taliban knew thew risks, had known the risk for years and they took them anyway. They wrote their own death warrants.

 

[zraver]

All that we hope is a negotiated settlement of the Afghan issue with inclusion of all the relevant parties and an installed government set up after an election under observers. we can only hope after that, the political forces will take over and stabilize the country. This is the best possible solution and probably least bound to cause massive bloodletting. But then having known the Afghans and their history, who knows. One thing is for sure, continued occupation of Afghanistan is going to be counterptroductive both for the locals and the occupiers.
WaSalam
Araz

To have a democratic process you need to break the tribes and warlords this means buying up the poppy crop direct from the farmers (or better yet pay them more for wheat and other food crops than they get for poppies) for several years while at the same time implementing social programs that force the warlords and tribal leaders to compete with rapidly depleting funds. This has to be backed up by insurgent hunting. Mkae the choice obvious- join the process and rely on the government and prosper, join the tribes who side with the Taliban and wither and die.

Also I would contest that Afghanistan is occupied, the 58% who make up all but 1 of the 8+ ethnic groups don't think so.

 

[roadrunner]

The problem you seem to be forgetting is the Taliban's support for groups that decided to wage war on the rest of the world. You can find Taliban links in the Kashmir conflict, Egypt, Suadi Arabia, Chechnya, Dagestan, attacks on America, operations in Malaysia and the Philippines etc. When the Taliban cast its lot with Al Queda and Arab jihadist it made itself part of them and part of their war on everything non-wahabist Sunni. That they made this choice is not in the least surprising- Saudi Wahabist had poured uncounted millions into the madrassas that created the Taliban in the first place.

The Taliban knew thew risks, had known the risk for years and they took them anyway. They wrote their own death warrants.

Your arguments on this thread have been poor and Indo-centric, to the extent you've falsified history on several occasions.

What you've said here is no exception. You will also find many claims US interference in Chechynia, the recent Georgian conflict, interference in Iraq, not to mention places like Panama, Venezuala and so on.

Though it is true that Al Q and the Taliban do have ties. Why shouldn't they, you had created them in the fog of the Soviet-Afghan war as allies to defeat the red devil?

 

[roadrunner]

But at what cost to Pakistan?

Pakistan will not be able to stay out of the fray in a total 'free for all', even if it wanted to, and it will suffer on multiple fronts.

A controlled transition works to the advantage of all parties concerned - the quibbling is over how much control.

The West is arguing for full fledged and continued military action until some sort of 'submission' of the Taliban, before broad based negotiations and compromises with the insurgents can take place, while Pakistan wants broad based negotiations and accommodation to start now.

There's nothing wrong with a controlled transition. But if the strongest or largest group is sidelined due to the support of a temporary foreign army, what happens when that army leaves? The transition fails.

If the transition includes the Pashtuns (and not puppet figureheads, but real power) that represents the people of Afghanistan, there won't be a problem. Do you think currently this is the case?

Stabilization of Afghanistan is in Pakistan's interest. It was the reason that Pakistan initially supported the Taliban, so that trade with central asia could occur. The question of the method of stabilization is the only contentious point. Using the Mujahideen to provide security was an idea, but it's not a good one. Pacification of Afghanistan needs to be brought about through other means, imo non military ones.

 

[roadrunner]

All that we hope is a negotiated settlement of the Afghan issue with inclusion of all the relevant parties and an installed government set up after an election under observers. we can only hope after that, the political forces will take over and stabilize the country. This is the best possible solution and probably least bound to cause massive bloodletting. But then having known the Afghans and their history, who knows. One thing is for sure, continued occupation of Afghanistan is going to be counterptroductive both for the locals and the occupiers.
WaSalam
Araz

That's fine also, if it can be workable. It would be ideal.

 

[zraver]

Your arguments on this thread have been poor and Indo-centric, to the extent you've falsified history on several occasions.

where, no am I Indo centric. I said all parties need to keep what they have and move on.

What you've said here is no exception. You will also find many claims US interference in Chechynia,

care to support that?

the recent Georgian conflict,

Georgia is a nation not a group. it chose an ally over more Russian domination. Given the history of Georgia sandwiched between Russia and Turkey and Iran can you blame them for going outside the box?

interference in Iraq,

Saddam could have honored his commitment to the UN that ended the 91 war, he did not, when you breach a cease-fire conflict resumes.

not to mention places like Panama,

Panama? Or do you mean the drug runner Noreiga? Panama controls its own destiny, Noriega decided to attack the US- he got spanked for it.

Venezuala and so on.

Funny, every time Hugo aleges a US plot he seeks more power for himself... If you can't connect the dots no one can do it for you.

Though it is true that Al Q and the Taliban do have ties. Why shouldn't they, you had created them in the fog of the Soviet-Afghan war as allies to defeat the red devil?

The US did not create the Taliban or Al Queda. No CIA money went to Bin Laden's efforts to recruit during the Soviet invasion. The Taliban did not emerge until 94- 4 years after the US implemented the Pressler Amendment that virtually ended all ties between the US and Pakistan.

BBC News | South Asia | Osama bin Laden 'innocent'

1998 BBC article showing the Taliban shielding OBL.

Given you inability to even get your years straight, your the one changing historical fact.

 

[muse]

Most reasonable people would agree that the American was compelled to be in Afghanistan - Now, what would assist him in finding his way home?

What can Pakistan do help the American bring his soldiers. men and women, home? Can it ensure that the social conditions that allow extremist ideologies to take root wlll be countered ? that the ideologyh will be countered in the media, in govt schools, that the Madaress will now be reformed?


Nobody is going to leave Afghanistan to the AQ or the Talib, it just won't happen.

Allow Afghanistan to evolve? Sure, but evolve in to what? And how can continued aremed conflict not effect Pakistan and Pakistan society?

But what of the idea that Afghanistan's neighbors gaurantee it's neutrality ? What do you guys think of this idea?

And another idea, which is that we may want ot thik beyond the idea of a single Afghan state and in this way, attenuate ethnic strife and perhaps these states can do a better job of conrtrolling extremist ideologies. What do you guys think?

 

[zraver]

There's nothing wrong with a controlled transition. But if the strongest or largest group is sidelined due to the support of a temporary foreign army, what happens when that army leaves? The transition fails.

If the transition includes the Pashtuns (and not puppet figureheads, but real power) that represents the people of Afghanistan, there won't be a problem. Do you think currently this is the case?

Look how the Taliban treated the majority of the country under the Taliban because they happened to be the biggest single block? It wasn't very nice and didn't give hoot for what the Uzbecks or who ever else thought was best for themselves. It seems the Pashtuns want something they were not willing to give to others.

 

[zraver]

Most reasonable people would agree that the American was compelled to be in Afghanistan - Now, what would assist him in finding his way home?

seal the Pak/Afghan border and let us kill the rats. If we can't trap them in Afghanistan, we have to go where they are.

 

[roadrunner]

Is it just on this forum that Americans are in severe denial? The Mujahideen which the US supported in the 1980s became the Taliban. The Taliban did not appear out of nowhere. There's even pictures of latter day Taliban pictured with Reagan in the White House.

 

[muse]

Sealing the Border is a non-starter - If you have not been i Afghanistan, allow me to explain that everyday commerce is carried out in Pakistani currency, all the way up to islam Qala on the Iranian border. People come and go as if they are coming and going between homes -a wedding in Peshawar, in the evening you are in Afghanistan -- a job in Pakistan and evening in the home home village in Afghanistan -- the problem is not the border or commerce, these are the solutions, the problem is ideology of the islamist.

 

[zraver]

Is it just on this forum that Americans are in severe denial? The Mujahideen which the US supported in the 1980s became the Taliban. The Taliban did not appear out of nowhere. There's even pictures of latter day Taliban pictured with Reagan in the White House.

There were multiple groups of Afghan fighters, the US sided with the Northern Alliance as did all but 3 countries if I am not mistaken.

I've seen the picture care to point out which one is currently a Taliban?

 

[blain2]

The US did not without provocation topple buildings in FATA or Afghanistan, the same cannot be said of AQ/Taliban.

Yes you are right, however the perpetrators and planners are not the Pashtuns of Uruzgan and Kandahar. Your war is turning into one against all of them. It won't take you far. The mastermind of the 9/11 bombings has been caught by Pakistan and delivered to you and as I read today has undergone 180 instanced of waterboarding within a span of a month. So lets get a perspective around where this fight is going and for how long.

The violence was manageable and very low level for the first couple of years- you'll remember the record legal end of occupation and UN certified elections. It was foreign elements who sought to take the low level violence to the next step and they did. The real carnage in Iraq stems from the destruction of the Shia shrine by a Sunni suicide bomber.

Zraver that is your view. Had the Iraqi Army been allowed to stay intact, the carnage that followed could have been avoided. Americans were advised by the Saudis and many others to do so but sane advice was disregarded that time around falling victim to the misplaced notion of "no dealing with the Baathists". This time around more sane advice to deal with the Pashtuns is being ignored on the grounds of "no dealing with Taliban". In the end the American side will come full circle and make deals with them to bring some semblance of stability in Afghanistan.

It did not happen in the USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia so its not an automatic.

There has to be a history of bloodshed in the entity prior to dismemberment for you to see the point I am trying to make. Aside from USSR which resulted in many more conflicts (Azerbaijan/Armenia, Gerogia/Russia, Russia/Ukraine etc.) most of the above examples do no apply. Compare that to Yugoslavia.

did you mean before the Soviet invasion? Afghanis were already at war with one another by 79.

No they were not. There was a proper government (albeit a puppet one) in Kabul. The Soviets installed it and then replaced it. There was no factional fighting in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion.

The Army was Sunni dominated in a Shia majority country, it could not have been reoriented. it was the army backed by the secret police, RG and SRG that had waged war on the Shia. Look into the destruction of the Marsh Arabs by Saddam. It was the army that drafted Shia boys and impaled them on Iranian Shia guns to serve Sunni interests.

My friend you are way off with your assessment. The vast majority of the Iraqi Army was led and manned by Shias. The Sunnis were definitely in most of the key positions, however in a country with a Shia majority, to man a million man Army, the majority of the manpower comes from that bank. Secondly, what is unknown to most is that Iran-Iraq war was essentially an Arab Shia vs. Persian Shia conflagration. Although it was not fought on these lines, however the vast majority of the troops who lost their lives on both sides (specifically Iraq) were Shias. I had Irani friends in Pakistan who would tell me about this tragedy as many had migrated and still live here.

The US government did not aid the Taliban. We supported the Northern Alliance. The closest we ever came to support was food aid for the afghani people and attempts to buy back stinger missiles. Some US companies dealt with them on energy issues, but those went no where.

I think you really need to dig up some real history and not follow what you just see in the newspapers which have absolutely no clue about the past history. Those who pass for experts from various think-tanks are pretty much clueless about what has gone on in that area in the distant and recent past. Real scholars in the United States have been sidelined by these various thinktanks that provide all these expert opinions on various news outlets and the newspapers in the United States.

US side invited representatives of the Taliban leadership and met with them in the US. The Northern Alliance was a non-entity when this was going on. Your memory is only around the years of 9/11. We have been following this long saga for at least 2 decades prior to that. There is so much history here that if someone wanted to do an honest analysis of it they would find many inconvenient truths here. The easy thing to do is to pass on the buck to Pakistan and let it be the punching bag for this Taliban bogey. Do remember that Taliban were recognized by three very important US allies in the Muslim world (KSA, UAE and Pakistan) and had 9/11 not happened, US contacts with them would have continued. There was business to be done and all were on board.

The US blessing never existed.

Sure believe what you will. Does not take anything away from the facts. It will only lead you turn around and reassess things in the future. You have my word on that. There will be no "victory" in Afghanistan.

The Tomahawk strikes should have been the signal.

Signal of what? A strike against Arab militants was not the same thing as taking on the Taliban. No less than the Saudi Intelligence chief and Pakistani Intelligence chief were trying to wean the original Taliban leadership from the Arab fighters who had gone to Afghanistan.

B/S, can we have some honesty here, we are targeting those who partake in the war in Afghanistan or support those who do. We are not targeting Mr Joe Pashtun because he has an AK. If Joe doesn't take aprt in the war the war wont come to hm and his family, if he does, the war does.

What nonsense is that? Someone invades your United States and do you think your reaction would be any different. If you did not take up a gun and fought against the occupiers then I would call you gutless. Lets not confuse things here. You went in to punish the perpetrators of 9/11. You have no idea who these people are so now the war is pretty much open ended and against Pashtuns. Take a look at the article that S-2 posted from the Washington Post that talks about a US Army platoon/Coy ambushing Taliban cadres. Guess who came for the dead bodies of the Taliban? Local villagers saying they wanted to bury their dead men. These people were not from Pakistan and they surely are not Al-Qaeda. You can sit here and try to make your war look like its only against a certain type of Pashtun etc. etc. but that is not what is happening on the ground.

The people who attacked the US then might be long gone, they might not. But what about the people who attacked the US and its allies last week and then retreated into Pakistan, or the Pakistanis who make those attacks possible. The US is not looking for a fight, the fight comes to the US/IASF.

The people who attack the US and the ISAF do so because they OCCUPY their country. Tell me how many of the 9/11 attackers were Pashtun? Zero! So your presence in their affairs is the reason they attack you. They do not come over to the United States to attack you. They attack you in their own country which you control by force of arms.

 

[zraver]

Sealing the Border is a non-starter - If you have not been i Afghanistan, allow me to explain that everyday commerce is carried out in Pakistani currency, all the way up to islam Qala on the Iranian border. People come and go as if they are coming and going between homes -a wedding in Peshawar, in the evening you are in Afghanistan -- a job in Pakistan and evening in the home home village in Afghanistan -- the problem is not the border or commerce, these are the solutions, the problem is ideology of the islamist.

As long as they give aid and comfort to the Taliban the air strikes will continue. Where does personal responsibility add into the equation? The houses gettign hit are engaging in activities they know could bring an air strike, they know their families are at risk, they know the men they are sheltering are fighters or masterminds who have blood on their hands, they know the nature of their radical hijacking of Islam, they know these same people are attacking more Muslims than Christians.... where does responsibility enter into the equation?