Like the interstate highway system?

Our big tough soldiers don't need boots. The Tarahumara run for days on end (as a part of their daily lives and for recreation) with sandals made from automobile tires.

I'm not very serious.

...or the army.

:lol2: score

KILL ALL EVIL FIREMEN AS THE ENTER THE DOORWAY!!! SAVE THE WORLD!!!!

The election ...

Well, I wasn't expecting a resounding success, but this is a total SNAFU.

Karzai and his cronies rigged the first ballot.
They did it clumsily and eveyone saw it.
The international community leaned on the Afghans until they admitted it was dodgy and they needed another poll.
The taliban made lots of trouble.
Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the run-off. Karzai was declared the winner and will be president.

Despite the fact that the poll was widely acknowledged to be fraudulent. No legitimate government, even more grounds for cynicism about democracy in Afghanistan.
And the taliban (and everyone else) have learned that they can disrupt an election with violence.
Karzai looks like a (successful) crook. Abdullah looks like a sore loser. The taliban have gained prestige and the influence that goes with it. The foreigners look like clumsy fools who can't even support their own puppet properly.

Election : fail.

: shakes head sadly :

I feel sorry for the Afghan people and all the soldiers who have served and suffered and sometimes died there.

ahhh, well tw will surely be happy with that statement...

God (insert your fav god) Bless those Brits....

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/gre...its-finest.htm

And the larger story, a long read but what great insight to what it is like in day to day ops.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bad-medicine.htm

This was written by Adam Holloway MP. He has some really great ideas.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ima...pedinsofar.pdf

Update:

Obama will send 30,000 more troops into Afganistan over the next 6 months. This will bring the number of troops in that country to 100,000. Where's the exit strategy? :eyebrow:

If I understand this correctly, to leave Afghanistan before some kind of country stabilizing victory, would only give fire to and embolden our Fundamental Islamic enemies. When speaking about countries where the people with the most get up and go are the insurgents and U.S. Soldiers, I personally laugh at the term "exit strategy". The Taliban definitely has an entrance strategy, all Americans want is an exit strategy. Hmmm......I wonder who will win this one in the long run?

If we want to hold on to Afghanistan, Iraq, even the Balkans; we better gear up to stay. If we can't stomach that, we better be ready for the consequences of letting those insurgents, trouble makers and Islamists where ever they are listen to us whine and talk about exit strategies. Those guys now understand they will definitely be there longer then we will. So do the people sitting on what ever fence they sit on who live in those countries.

Good points RG - instead of a detailed plan on how what and how to succeed, all some people want to know is when/how we leave. Rather confusing.
On top of that - How can we say publicly that we'll be out on "x-date" without letting the opposition know that as well.

It's not reasonable to say we will be out on "x date," but it is reasonable to say we will be out once "x goals" are reached.

I haven't heard anyone in authority say what the goals are in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

It's all partisan politics. I'd laugh, if I weren't so disgusted

It doesn't matter where the war is, what the war is about, or who is in power when it happens. The other side will do nothing but stand there and throw stones. American politics knows no other way to function. It is simply not possible for us to function any other way. Shit, at this point, if the Democrats stood up and said "You know, maybe universal health care isn't such a good idea after all", the Republicans would immediately stand up and shout how the Dems didn't care about people.

One side takes a position, the other side shoots it down. The topic is irrelevant.

Link

I found this an interesting take on the address. Not that I agree with it as I didn't get that feeling from it, but as I think more on it.... hmm.

The timeline does seem awfully convenient.

McChrystal promised if he got troops he'd achieve x goals, in y timeline.
Obama said OK, here's your troops, now do what you promised.
From that point, whether McCrystal succeeds or fails, the focus on fighting militants will change, and the plan is to make Pakistan put up or shut up.
We want Bin Lauden and his 2nd in command. We want to cripple Al-Qaeda. But I don't think the Taliban is a threat to us, except when we're fucking around on their turf. They may be a threat to Pakistan, which would make them an indirect threat to us, but that's a big leap from where they are now.

As Obama was pondering his decision, I was also trying to think what the heck to do there.

"Victory" as I see it is when all the foreign troops have gone home AND a couple of other conditions are met.

The only really important thing we want from Afghanistan is that they not allow terrorist organisations to use it as a base. It would also be good if they could cut down heroin production. As a preference, I do want that Afghan civilians have the basic set of human rights respected, but I'm not willing to bleed indefinitely to secure that. Democracy would be nice but it would take generational change and we just aren't interested in that kind of investment, and there are better things to use those resources on.

The best I could think of was to let Karzai run the show as he likes, pull out, and make sure they know we aren't returning. We should do this slowly and with notice so the Kabul government (for want of a better word) can prepare to take full responsibility. After that it is up to them.

Basically, we shout "Hey, Karzai! Catch!" and throw him the ball. I think this is the only thing that has much chance of achieving victory as I set it.

I also expect that before we even leave Karzai will be showing (more) signs of corruption, brutality, political repression etc. While I expect to dislike this, I am not willing to invade or keep occupying Afghanistan to prevent it.

...but, as Bruce points out ... right next door to Pakistan. Hmmm.

I read in the paper, theres no danger of the taliban taking control of Kabul, at the moment. I couldn't help but think, to the average Afghani, the effect would be the same, as it would to me if the Republicans took control of Seattle. Interesting, but so what.
The Central government has never ruled the country, and I doubt if they ever can... well at least not for another hundred years, and that's if they work real hard at it.

[thinking along] Which means that we can't reasonably rely on the central government to prevent terrorist organisations from basing themselves in the country. Hmmm.

which means a forever commitment to occasional intervention... I wonder if Pakistan's border regions are any different.

Much the same; there are places in Pakistan where the central government officially "does not guarantee your security".

I have wondered if maybe it would help to excise the tribal regions from both Afghanistan and Pakistan, thus letting the more orderly areas of those countries stabilise, and lumping all the trouble together in a new third country, Fubaristan, in which whacko extremists can do whatever they like but should be aware that western powers will bomb them if we don't like the look of what they are up to.

Dunno about that idea, though. Sounds like it could go wrong.

What could possibly go wrong??? That sounds like a great idea!

I'm thinking Asscrackistan is a better name then Fubaristan. though Asscrackistan could end up being a district inside of Fubaristan, along with Eatadikestan and Nutsackistan.

I think that was what they said in the 1980s about using that Bin Laden guy to fight the soviets in ... where was it again?


How about Trashcanistan?

"Ashcanistan" puns have already been made in US political cartoons. Less potent were "East Abunny" and "The Fun Republic of Chuckles." All in the same cartoon yet, something about a UN council -- might have been on civil rights.

Damm! that sounds just like the Demoncrats during Bush. :lol:

Yup.

I disagree. I think Afghanistan is merely a strategic move for long term goals in the region. If we gave up Afghanistan, we would give up leverage in the area versus China, India, Iran, and Russia. It would be like giving up the knight holding the center board in a chess match. It also wouldn't be to far fetched to suggest that Pakistan is the main goal here.

Terrorism and freedom is just the excuse to go there. There are places with just as much terror and lack of freedoms yet we are not doing anything there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostra...n_Central_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan_%28Pakistan%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPI_pipeline
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/afpak

How would you know those 2 things?

wiki said so?

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

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.

I don't know those two things but I can still analyze a situation and come up with conclusions. It doesn't mean they are right, but what I support. I'm not going to write I think or IMO every time I make a statement.

But here is a basic analysis on the situation.

Facts about this scenario:
1) The US is not a moral state, but one that acts out on its self-interests. Every legitimate nation does this.
2) Shortage of resources will be a problem for the entire world in this century.
3) The US is not self-sustainable and will not be in the next century.
4) Afghanistan is in the middle of a highly strategic location, especially with regards to resources. Central Asia and Balochistan are two places with much economic potential.
5) Historically, Afghanistan is an extremely difficult if not impossible place for foreign occupiers to hold.
6) Current Islamic terrorism is an ideology that feeds on foreign occupation.

While our current method of combating anti-western terrorism does have its strategic benefits, I do not believe it is worth the effort we are putting in to it right now. Although, I believe that resources are going to be a very large problem in the next century and without proper strategic locations, it will be very difficult competing with the upcoming powers in Asia. So, by getting a hold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we will have an edge over China, Russia, Iran, and India that we would not have without holding those nations.

If this is true, being upfront about it would have devastating effects on the US. It would basically be saying that we are killing thousands of people to exploit foreign resources while not do anything to be self-sufficient. It may be the best realistic solution according to greater US interests, but many US citizens will not see it that way. So, by making a lesser issue, giving Afghanistan freedoms and ridding of anti-western terrorist groups, a bigger one, it will be less likely to be criticized.


I just want to make it clear that I do not fully reject the possibility that we are in Afghanistan for the reasons given to us by Bush and Obama. I do think they are issues and we are legitimately working towards them but I do not think they are the biggest issue. It would also be a two birds with one stone scenario so its likely both issues are being worked at. I just believe that the resources issue will take priority over the freedom and terrorism issue.

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 ... ?

Ok. I think you have over analyzed it. But thanks for responding.

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.

That may be true, there are other fully legitimate reasons for us being there, but if it isn't now, I still believe it will be an issue in the future.

For those who are interested, an article stating four reasons why the US should stay in Afghanistan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...orth_the_fight

Frontline: Obama's War

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To somewhat back up what I have been saying. There is strategic importance here and at least China has seen it. I would be very surprised if the US has not either. There are some potential conspiracy theories laced in so I do keep that in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwadar


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_O2JHv7M-9R...BPipelines.gif


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE09Df03.html

http://www.tni.org/archives/archives_bidwai_balochistan

Only in the dreams of Pepe Escobar. I think you would be hard pressed to see such a reckless description of strategic goals for Afghanistan among US planners.

Of course, if we managed to kick the oil habit, we could just say screw the lot of you - we don't need your pipelines; and walk away.

I'm with you Zen - That has to be the ultimate goal.

Indeed. There are so many useful, even durable, goods made of petrochemicals that it seems rather a pity to go around burning any.

We would be happier with our economies less perturbable by kerfuffles in wobbly nations that aren't, shall we say, altogether friendly. Nor altogether boringly stable.

I was expecting that to be a Goatsee.

No Goatsee... or rickroll.
It shows when, as was pointed out here in the Cellar at the time, when Rumsfeld blew it, in Afghanistan.

Why do you hate America and love totalitarians?

They have better snacks.

I thought totalitarians only drank tea.

Kinda boring if you ask me.

Ze Frank is getting paid by Time now? That's great but who'll pay for his less serious endeavors?

Only if they are teatotalitarians.


Gawd I crack me up.

<overlysensitiveresponse>