This is exactly what happens when America did not do nation building in 2002. And then virtually surrendered to the Taliban in 2003. We still don't know by how much we were defeated because of that blunder. The same blunder by the same people in 1991 - Desert Storm. And the same blunder committed by the same people in 2003 when Baghdad fell in Mission Accomplished. When even the Iraqi national museum was ransacked because they did not plan for the peace. So uneducated as to insist that America must not do nation building. All but protected bin Laden.

This is their legacy we must live with, And pay for. The current recession is a $1 trillion debt we are just beginning to pay - Mission Accomplished. At least another $2 trillion in debts yet to be realized. It does not include the bills for Afghanistan. And the $billlions given to Pakistan so that our Army is not trapped in Afghanistan (think Stalingrad or Syracuse).

No. This happened when we tried to give a country ruled by religious zealots democracy. They couldn't handle it.

You mean god cannot teach his followers democracy? Well he sure is good at teaching pedophilia. Why is teaching democracy harder?

IMHO, Afghanstan was never rebuildable as a modern democratic nation.

Democracy is hard to teach becaues it requires patience, self-control and accepting that you don't always get what you want, even though you could just do what you always did and go out with some guns and take it. The fruits come slowly.

Like I keep telling you, we need to mumblemumblemuble immediately!

Nope, some people are just too ignorant.

well said. They have to be able to grasp the concept. They are generations deep in ignorance and despair, without basic needs nor education and beaten down by decades ... err ... centuries of dictatorships.

Actually, I was thinking, the problem is that they've had a variety of incompetant govenrments, periods of anarchy and civil war, and occasional religious nutter dictatorships. What they need is a century of a single, solid dictatorship (such as India had under British Colonial rule) to get them used to the idea of obeying the government. Said dictatorship would foster education and gradually - over a few generations - introduce democracy.

You Yanks would be happy to supply 50,000 troops for 50 years and another few trillion bucks to pay for it all, wouldn't you? :right: We'll send a few guys with a flag and a sharpened boomerang.

Ha!

Oh I've heard these things can be done "on the cheap"... :D

Rumsfeld is long gone.

Afghanistan (and Pakistan to a lesser extent) has never had a true central government. Rural regions are mostly on their own - autonomous regions.

Most regions did not like the Taliban. Even Iran hates them. But most regions no longer trust NATO either. Now that America reneged on promises too many times. See the end of a movie called "Charlie Wilson's War" to appreciate when trust was first poisoned. Fool me thrice ... shame on ... no way. Nobody is going to fall for it.

Worse, Karzai and his peers regard corruption as normal or essential. Not sure which. But corruption makes respect for a central government difficult as it also was in S Vietnam. Furthermore, they are playing a game of brinkmanship because they do not even know what will exist in the next years (see four paragraphs down).

To many parts of Pakistan's government, Afghanistan is an enemy. The Intercontinental Hotel bombing in Kabul was by Pakistan.

We must get out. NATO is trying to do that while minimizing the damage. Currently missing is something that must exist before going to war. An exit strategy that was, if it every existed, perverted when we all but protected bin Laden seven years ago.

Meanwhile, what is never publically discussed is necessary to have a successful exit strategy. All violence is only for getting to a peace table. Only honest leaders talk to everyone - especially the enemy. Something that extremist leaders before 2008 refused to do.

Talks started by Holbrook have been ongoing. Talks that may also explain why Karzai sometimes appears to be stabbing America in the back. When, in reality, is it part of those long ongoing negotiations. An essential exit strategy that never existed before 2008. That was not possible when diminished and foolish leaders said they must earn the right to talk to us.

The negotiations, after 2008, for an exit strategy exist. It’s just not clear how much leverage we have left. Extreme damage was done in 2003 when somebody decided that a complete lie called Mission Accomplished was more important. After 2008, an actual solution has been in the works.

I have to agree. The country of Afghanistan has not really had an effective central government, ever. Unless they understand what a generally more participatory government can bring to the table they will always return to what they know best, a feudal style of tribalism, a system that has worked for them for hundred if not thousands of years.

Or perhaps it could break up into smaller countries and form some type of union.

Can't, the acronym is already taken.

Seriously, you want to see the United States of Afghanistan at the Olympics? :lol:

... and get them used to corporations reaping (or raping) the countryside for natural resources.

Oh look, here come some Chinese men dressed in business suits. :rolleyes:
.

Okay, here's the plan.

We pump a few million barrels of oil under Afghanistan. Then we "discover" it and get all excited. Then the Chinese get interested and we do a deal with them that they take over maintaining security in exchange for access to the mineral rights. We bugger off, China gets to bleed out in the mountains for a decade.

Whaddaya think?