Solving Afghanistan?

[S-2]

You could e-mail the Afghan Center For Social and Opinion Research or perhaps the gentleman from the BBC.

Again, your musings right now, blain's, anybody else, really weigh against the offered research and the history of doing such. I'd encourage a inquiry if so concerned or accept the data at value and argue your thoughts from there.

I don't presume a perfect sampling. I also don't presume that's necessarily kept the survey from reflecting the base realities and have read nothing yet that compellingly argues otherwise.

Thanks.

 

[roadrunner]

Responding to an attempt at discourse with "Leave it alone" is perhaps representative of how you feel, but its not convincing anyone of anything, and furthermore, does nothing to support your status of "Think Tank" on this forum.

I'm really not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Just putting some opinions.

That really is my opinion. Artificially propping up regimes like Najibullah or Karzai just prolongs the artificial status quo, for when the superpower leaves, the subdued majority remove what they see as foreign interference. So my opinion is the best way is to let evolution take its course, let the best man win in an initial fight in Afghanistan free of foreign interference, then slowly, perhaps with help of others, educate them in a particular direction to eliminate what is a foreign ideology. The US should leave the country well alone though, it's done enough damage as it is.

I admit you are not going to convince S-2 of anything anyhow, but he is not the one you should be "Talking" to anymore than politicians really speak to each other when they debate.

Occasionally I speak to S-2, it's not a crime. His posts can be amusing in the sense of primitivity sometimes.

I understand you might be trying to point the thread in a diffrent direction, since it has gotten so very far off target.

I can certainly understand why you would dislike it when a thread about the deaths of Pakistani soldiers somehow turns into a thread about how the PA is not trying hard enough.

No no. That's not my opinion at all. The PA does a lot. The US media would prefer all out civil war in Pakistan, and Ralph Peter's map to come to fruition. That's something I don't agree with.

 

[zraver]

Well you cannot do what you did to the Germans and the Japanese just because times are different (although one never knows) and the nature of the war is slightly different.

Times are different, and so wars ast longer with more dead and fewer lasting peaces. WWI and II were a European anomoly in regards total war becuase of the relative parity of the forces involved. The American Civil War, the Devils Wind, Line backer II, Operation Desert Storm are more effective examples of the use of the totality or warfare to achieve decisive political results. Although the US flubbed the peace after the cease-fire and failed ot support the Shia no one can deny that Saddam's regime was giving its death rattles. This is the level of violence war demands if war is to be effective. Piecemeal war is longer and costlier in live sand treasure.

However fighting CI is a tricky affair and if you are not effective in weaning off the support from the insurgency and in turn alienate the people further then it becomes a matter of perception.

There are toow ays to isoalte the insurgents from the population- competition for ideas or force. The US is not in a position to compete for ideas inside Pakistan. The only US option other than catipulation is force.

[quuote]Again there was no in-fighting between factions. The Soviets were playing king makers and the violence was as a result of their positioning of folks who then decided to not toe their line and then were eliminated by the Soviets eventually leading to invasion.

There were street battles, air strikes and people dying.

The Army could have been made to be trusted. The Republican Guard was the Baathist entity. That should have been disbanded, not the entire Iraqi Army and the police force.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But the higher command was Baathist. Its spilt milk now as a lot of those disbanded soldiers from the Army became death sqaud members and a lot of the disbanded guards became insurgents. I think the best course was to rebuild the Iraqi military from the ground up.

No I did not mean that. You are fine to disagree. However I do feel that you have some holes in your recall of history. Forget the point about me suggesting you do not know what you are talking about. I did not intend it that way.

done

I owe you that. Need to dig it up in the books. Will come back to you with the year/names etc.

please, I'd like to know if they were Taliban, or muhjadeen the two are not interchangable.

I respect that and have no intent to insult you, I find some of the stuff you state to be off the mark thus suggesting to you quite frankly that those of us who lived in the region throughout the Soviet war and then the whole Taliban mess in Afghanistan have a perspective which is different from what one may read in the books in the West and in college/Uni.

I can accpet that, but you also have a regional bias that acts as a blinder. You for example advocate India ceeding most J/K and think this is right. I, as an American see the fairest and most logical soliution beign simply redrawign the borders to offically match the reality of who has what.

Not one aside from that of USSR provides a case of such diversity of ethinicities as that of Iraq. That was my point.

Czech Republic and Slovakia separated without incident. The Baltics and slavs for the most part separatred from the USSR without incident. The conflict post- Cold War seems to be hottest not where ethnicity is in play, but religion.

I have to go to class be back later

 

[blain2]

"I admit you are not going to convince S-2 of anything anyhow..."

No tolerance for B.S. I've offered roadrunner or anybody else here the opportunity to provide something more up to date or reasonable. What do I receive? Dissemblance of what's provided...which, btw, has been done by the BBC/ABC/ARD since 2005.

So provide me with a lucid argument why the mechanics behind this poll are inadequate and, more to the point, not reflective of ground conditions.

Unfair. I'm not responsible for his demonstrated inadequacies.

My sole contention is something that you cannot deny. A significant insurgency is going on within the country as the Pashtuns are sidelined/sit out (they do so for certain reasons which you are aware of). I am not even questioning the demographics of the poll anymore since I did some background on it and found out that the sample size is 1534 and was conducted in all of the 34 Afghan provinces.

The poll asks questions about the Taliban threat but does not deal with the dissatisfaction of what comprises 40% of the Afghan population. I do not blame the poll or the ones polling because there is only so much that can be targeted for responses in the sample. However questions along the composition of the government etc., inclusiveness of the ethnic groups etc. would reveal data that would be helpful in understanding who is sitting out and for what reasons.

This dissatisfaction exists thus the insurgency goes on and gets fueled. Pakistan can use all the tools at her disposal to stir up trouble in Afghanistan if she wanted to (as you claim she is), however in the end its the locals in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan who are planning and fighting this insurgency.

Get rid of the poppy cultivation to stop the flow of money to these folks since Pakistan can barely afford to sustain her economy and is in no position to finance a covert war against the US/ISAF. Most of the problems of dissatisfaction leading to the insurgency are inside of Afghanistan. Funding for and alienation of the insurgents are both factors which can be controlled by the Afghan/US/ISAF forces.

 

[blain2]

There were street battles, air strikes and people dying.

My point was that it was not factional fighting pitting the Pashtun vs Tajik vs. Hazara carnage that happened after they left.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But the higher command was Baathist. Its spilt milk now as a lot of those disbanded soldiers from the Army became death sqaud members and a lot of the disbanded guards became insurgents. I think the best course was to rebuild the Iraqi military from the ground up.

Zraver,

This was a million man army. You clean up the leadership and move on. Disbandment of a million man army is not an option and not every one of those officers/soldiers was a death squad member as you claim. There were perfectly capable and professional Iraqi officers who were patriotic and willing to continue to serve their country. In any case this is in the past, I was just pointing out some of the very serious mistakes made overlooking ground realities because of the sloganeering around "no dealing with the Baathists" and now "no dealing with the Taliban/Pashtuns".

please, I'd like to know if they were Taliban, or muhjadeen the two are not interchangable.

I know the two are different. We have seen the old Mujahideen cadres and also the Taliban in Pakistan. Most of the current Taliban were little kids when the Soviet war was going on.

I can accpet that, but you also have a regional bias that acts as a blinder. You for example advocate India ceeding most J/K and think this is right. I, as an American see the fairest and most logical soliution beign simply redrawign the borders to offically match the reality of who has what.

Indeed I do have a regional bias, but what I am telling you is something that is closer to the ground reality than the totally removed from the situation solution proposed by you. The Kashmiris will not allow Pakistan and India to simply decide amongst themselves based on what each currently has. If they do then its fine, however thus far they are a major player in these discussions and have resisted two way talks. Secondly, I am not even sure if Kashmiris want to live with Pakistan..so do not assume my points to be supportive of inclusion of all of Kashmir in Pakistan. I am not suggesting an absolutist approach. Simply stating that Kashmir issue has to be resolved to help with stability in the region. I do know one thing and it is that Pakistan has put more offers on the table than India.

Czech Republic and Slovakia separated without incident. The Baltics and slavs for the most part separatred from the USSR without incident. The conflict post- Cold War seems to be hottest not where ethnicity is in play, but religion.

The fissures in the society could be due to ethnicity or religion. They just have to be strong. In the case of Czech Republic and Slovakia, there was no violent history between the two peoples. Both sides had their own nationalistic aspirations and they went for them amicably. In Iraq, it was the Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds who fought. Then it was the Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs who fought (all Muslims). Saddam kept these people together. So these splits have to be observed and planned for before you wage a war for your own ulterior motives.

I have to go to class be back later

No problem. This discussion is probably going in circles now.

 

[wtf]

That's the point isn't it - you have to get to the level of genocide to accomplish that kind of turnaround.

And its not just the reach of ideology that is magnified many times over through the media and IT, but also its ability to take events in real time and manipulate them to serve its ends.

The old formula's do not apply anymore.

What I am saying is that an armed uprising is not always in response to an act of provocation. Neither have, historically speaking, acts of armies been responded to with terrorism. The traditional way has been to have revolutions, to form armies in exile, political process etc.

My assertion is that Taliban is not a force that is caused by US bombing, but a result of having large uncontrolled tracts of lands filled with people with access to cheap funding and guns. In that sense it is similar to fights in African nations (coups, counter-coups, inter tribal fights) than to Iraq. In African nations funding was from foreign companies trying to control resources, while in case of Pakistan the (historic) funding has been in the name of religion.

Asking US to get out of Afghanistan because of Taliban is, in that sense, boneheaded. It gives in to terrorists and asks them to move closer to Islamabad.
Even Nawaz Sharif is saying so now
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Swat Taliban are threat to democracy, Pakistan: Nawaz

Chechnya did not achieve a genocidal level. It was extremely brutal judging by reports (Beslan) , but Russia did in the end prevail and all foreign militants ran out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What I am saying is that an armed uprising is not always in response to an act of provocation. Neither have, historically speaking, acts of armies been responded to with terrorism. The traditional way has been to have revolutions, to form armies in exile, political process etc.

My assertion is that Taliban is not a force that is caused by US bombing, but a result of having large uncontrolled tracts of lands filled with people with access to cheap funding and guns. In that sense it is similar to fights in African nations (coups, counter-coups, inter tribal fights) than to Iraq. In African nations funding was from foreign companies trying to control resources, while in case of Pakistan the (historic) funding has been in the name of religion.

Perhaps not always, but the argument here is that the insurgency in Afghanistan has indeed taken on the mantle of an 'uprising against occupation'.

The primary self-described driving factor behind the insurgent groups at this point is 'US occupation' - that was the primary cause behind the rapid rise of the insurgent groups in Pakistan and their sky rocketing recruitment.

One also has to view the US presence in Afghanistan in light of a dominant narrative in the Muslim world of the US attempting to 'colonize and weaken' Muslim nations.

Asking US to get out of Afghanistan because of Taliban is, in that sense, boneheaded. It gives in to terrorists and asks them to move closer to Islamabad.
Even Nawaz Sharif is saying so now
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Swat Taliban are threat to democracy, Pakistan: Nawaz

You have turned a nuanced argument into a 'boneheaded one', and you did much the same with my 'Shariah in Pakistan' and 'leave Pakistan alone' arguments. try not to focus on one single line. Read the posts in their entire context.

Throwing in canards like 'give in to terrorists' is also not helpful, and the dynamics in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not comparable.

Chechnya did not achieve a genocidal level. It was extremely brutal judging by reports (Beslan) , but Russia did in the end prevail and all foreign militants ran out.

Chechnya was also more of a 'separatist' conflict vs an 'occupation of a sovereign nation', so the mindset (the population having already existed as part of Russia/Soviet Union could not be said to be irrevocably opposed to the idea of continued existence as part of Russia) and dynamics are different, and still , as you said, it took an extremely brutal campaign over a very long time before Russia could declare 'victory'.

 

[Solomon2]

Chechnya was also more of a 'separatist' conflict vs an 'occupation of a sovereign nation', so the mindset (the population having already existed as part of Russia/Soviet Union could not be said to be irrevocably opposed to the idea of continued existence as part of Russia) and dynamics are different -

Nonsense. Chechens have always been considered disloyal to the Russian state, which considered exterminating them in the nineteenth century. They were actually deported en masse by Stalin in WWII. Khruschev allowed them to return, but the credo of the Chechen remained unchanged: true manhood cannot be achieved without killing at least one Russian. The Russians would have done well to leave them alone and let them split after the USSR broke up, but instead they chose to pick a fight.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nonsense. Chechens have always been considered disloyal to the Russian state, which considered exterminating them in the nineteenth century. They were actually deported en masse by Stalin in WWII. Khruschev allowed them to return, but the credo of the Chechen remained unchanged: true manhood cannot be achieved without killing at least one Russian. The Russians would have done well to leave them alone and let them split after the USSR broke up, but instead they chose to pick a fight.

Nonetheless, Chechnya has had a history of being part of the Soviet Union/USSR, and its amalgamation into the Soviet Union took place generations ago. For most Chechens during the Chechen wars, being part of the Soviet Union/Russia, whether they liked it or not, was also reality.

The Chechen analogy therefore cannot be applied to the US occupation of Afghanistan, especially in conjunction with the prevalent historical narratives of other 'super powers' (the British and USSR) being defeated in their attempts to 'occupy' Afghanistan.

 

[blain2]

but the credo of the Chechen remained unchanged: true manhood cannot be achieved without killing at least one Russian.

Are we to take this supposed cultural folklore seriously here in this discussion?

 

[Solomon2]

I'm quoting the saga of the Chechens and their credo from the book MiG Pilot. (Upon arrival at base in Chechnya, Flight Lieutenant Belenko was told how dangerous the locals were and that it was thus necessary for him to carry a long knife.)

 

[wtf]

The primary self-described driving factor behind the insurgent groups at this point is 'US occupation' - that was the primary cause behind the rapid rise of the insurgent groups in Pakistan and their sky rocketing recruitment.

You have turned a nuanced argument into a 'boneheaded one', and you did much the same with my 'Shariah in Pakistan' and 'leave Pakistan alone' arguments. try not to focus on one single line. Read the posts in their entire context.

Throwing in canards like 'give in to terrorists' is also not helpful, and the dynamics in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not comparable.

Forgive me for the use of terms that may have sounded incendiary. I am not trying to call anyone stupid - I am criticizing the move.Just saying that the move may be one of tactical advantage (they stop killing cops), but that may become strategic disadvantage. I'll take back that entire line of argument if that helps the discussion.

The "giving in" argument is something I feel strongly about. If you take a gun and ask someone for something, and you get it, you are likely to go back and ask for more. On the other hand, if you can get a discussion to one of reason and logic, things get much better. That is why I am so amazed that Pakistan signed the deal. I agree that signing a deal is entirely the people's/govt prerogative, just that it should not have been done when they have guns. This is actually backed by data - which is why nations like US refuse to negotiate with hostage takers. Maybe Sharia is the best deal for Pakistan, it is not for me to judge. But imposing that rule set while one party is armed and willing to kill, is in my opinion counterproductive.

Your original argument was that if you use an army, there will be retaliation from terrorists and so if US should back down. I was trying to give examples of places where overwhelming force actually won. My further claim is that if US backs down, Pakistan will be still in trouble because your enemies are not after Sharia or against US, but now want their power throughout Pakistan.

I may be missing your nuanced argument entirely - I cannot see how people who are willing to die and kill in Afghanistan and people who do the same in Pakistan should be treated differently. But don't let that divert the thread.

 

[wtf]

And let me try and add to the "nuanced argument" bit.
Here are two peer reviewed , published studies in journals. Both are freely accessible. There are many more like them, but they need subscriptions to foreign policy journals.

The first one claims that terrorists are motivated more by action of other terrorists around them than by reasoning. Everyone is angry, but no one moves until some first person does. So US did not start the terrorists, someone else did. And once they have started, US pulling out won't help.
SSRN-Inhibiting Imitative Terrorism Through Memetic Engineering by Richard Pech

The second one shows that terrorists are not always motivated exactly as their leaders are. A terrorist may kill himself for reasons that are personal (anger against society etc.), but he can be motivated by a leader who has different interests.

SSRN-What Directs a Terrorist? by Karen Pittel, Dirk Rübbelke

So a dying terrorist may give one reason for dying (anti-US), while Mehsud may have a different reason. Excellent example of this is Kasab in Mumbai - he apparently claims no reason except that he was asked to and that he wanted the money.

So thinking that terrorists are attacking Pakistan because they hate US in Afghanistan or that they want Shariah may not be always right. They first get angry and then find reasons for being angry. If you take away one reason, they will find another.

 

[muse]

Wtf

Great post - perhaps posts such as yours will help initiate a discussion about what is that the islamists terrorists wants in Pakistan .

 

[roadrunner]

I know the two are different. We have seen the old Mujahideen cadres and also the Taliban in Pakistan. Most of the current Taliban were little kids when the Soviet war was going on.

I don't agree with that unless you mean the foot soldiers of the Taliban are the new cadres. Most of the leadership of the Taliban are formed from ex-Mujahideen, such as Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar.

The same ideology that the Mujahideen was brainwashed with, is being used on the new foot soldiers.