Afghanistan

[grampster]

So, at the risk of an internal civil war here in Political, how many of you would just pack up our warriors and pull out of Afghanistan and leave those folks to their own devices.  Maybe vaporize a mountain top somewhere incountry as a stern warning of bad things to follow if they export any terrorism.  In other words, since it appears that America is not much different than anyone else over the last couple thousand years when it comes to civilizing the uncivilized in that region, why should we bother.  A'stan is rich in resources, but who cares?

I base my sentiments upon the fact that there are enough resources in the western hemisphere that could be exploited for the benefit of the western hemisphere to be concerned about those who are only a threat because we enrich them by purchasing their resources.  Let those in the east wallow in their own dung, ramp up our strategic protective abilities and go happily about our business.

[Waitone]

A'stan is rich in resources, but who cares?

The US cares, that's who.  A'stan is a Disneyland of minerals which both the Ruskies and US have known about for quite a while.  A'stan in the west provides a convenient land route for an oil pipeline out of the various Stans to the north.  A really heavy percentage of the world's supply of opium comes out of A'stan.  And lastly, A'stan borders Pakistan and the US has strong interest in controlling Pakistan.  In a nutshell the US is in A'stan for reasons of power projection and control over natural resources.  It has nothing to do with nation building and the spread of democracy (whatever that means). 

As a backgrounder, google up "silk road strategy"

Cynical enough?

[longeyes]

If A'stan is that valuable why are we fighting the war there in small-scale skirmishes and preparing to turn over the fighting to the natives?  It sounds, if you are right, that we should get real, as in realpolitik, and demand national mobilization to make sure we survive and prevail as a society.  It's okay to be "cynical" but then we have to be pragmatic with the follow-up.

I'm cynical too, but my view is we are fighting a war of attrition, but who's being attrited isn't clear yet, nor is who exactly is going to be benefiting from all the minerals and poppies?  One thing we don't need is more trickle-down cynicism. 

[grampster]

So, I peruse "A Modern Silk Road Strategy" by Star and Kuchins.  Marvelous paper.  Great ideas.   hey, spell it out to the American people.  Let us invest in the strategy inter alia. Let's go to town.

Who could want otherwise? Taliban and other radical, extremist, religous fanatic backward Muslim tribalists who have no interest in modernism who posess modern weapons and have no fear of death or deprivation of the citizenry. The situation on the ground is such that modern warfare of limited engagement, piddling around and being careful not to harm anyone will not create a situation like Europe or Japan where we leveled the continent and then picked up the pieces and whatever people were left were just glad the killing and destruction were over so they could help pick up the pieces.  A'stan ain't like that and no one has ever learned that lesson since Alexander.

The liberal intellectuals on the left and the right forbid war on the scale of what is necessary to get the job done and implement the great plan of the silk road.  The only way it works is the civilized or nearly civilized entities in the region recognize the value of the Silk Road and join together and get the job done right.  Ain't gonna happen in my view, so why bother when we could be implementing the same type of plan here in the Western hemisphere where the players are or could be amenable with less trouble and close to home.  Let those in the East sort out their own deal.  Then we'd have a tripartate situation with Europe and China and the West facing off and protecting their own bailiwicks and not having much need to get in a pissing contest about it.  Might even find down he road that there is much to be gained in trading rather than fighting.

Instead of destroying ourselves from within as we are currently doing, why not act like the Empire we are and do stuff that makes us bigger and better and do it closer to home while reminding folks about the big stick, and maybe make an example if we have to.  As for shock and awe, I'm shocked and awed by what a bunch of wimps we've become when opportunity abounds. We are embarrasing ourselves as a nation and a people by allowing the frickin' wimps we have elected to continue to muddle around in their shortsighted idiotic, apolgetic nittwittery.  Giuliani said it best a couple of years ago..."We don't want to fight with you, we'd rather trade with you."  America has he opportunity to be modern day Phoenicians and we're letting it slide.

[MicroBalrog]

On this topic: what do Americans think about the recent agreements between Russia and America on the subject of Afghanistan, especially Russia agreeing to let American aircraft through her airspace and the like?

[longeyes]

Same Russia that's doing deals with Iran, cooperating with China?  I imagine Russia is pleased, for obvious reasons, to see America spinning its wheels in Afghanistan, expending blood and treasure for dubious returns.  Afghanistan was a bitter pill for them, and they know we subverted their efforts there.  The worm's turned, and the worm's speaking Russian.  They probably figure they'll get their share of the goodies in A'stan if they're patient.

[lee n. field]

So, at the risk of an internal civil war here in Political, how many of you would just pack up our warriors and pull out of Afghanistan and leave those folks to their own devices.  Maybe vaporize a mountain top somewhere incountry as a stern warning of bad things to follow if they export any terrorism.  In other words, since it appears that America is not much different than anyone else over the last couple thousand years when it comes to civilizing the uncivilized in that region, why should we bother.  A'stan is rich in resources, but who cares?

I base my sentiments upon the fact that there are enough resources in the western hemisphere that could be exploited for the benefit of the western hemisphere to be concerned about those who are only a threat because we enrich them by purchasing their resources.  Let those in the east wallow in their own dung, ramp up our strategic protective abilities and go happily about our business.

So, what exactly are we over there for?

We'd have to kill them all, or convert them all, to make a difference.  Heck, the Russkies were right there, in driving distance, and couldn't pull it off.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

On this topic: what do Americans think about the recent agreements between Russia and America on the subject of Afghanistan, especially Russia agreeing to let American aircraft through her airspace and the like?

Better them than Pakistan.

[Jamisjockey]

So, what exactly are we over there for?

We'd have to kill them all, or convert them all, to make a difference.  Heck, the Russkies were right there, in driving distance, and couldn't pull it off.

Western civilization has always sought to convert and civilize. 



Oh, and I'm of the "pull out now, scorch the earth on the way out" crowd.
We should be no better friend, and no worse enemy.  Send terrorists to our country and kill us?  Good luck digging yourselves out of whats left of your country when we're done with it.
I'm sick of modern politicans that are scared to fight, bunch of namby pambys, and scared to stand up and say "Look, we have no reason nor right to build democracies in this thirdworldistans. They screwed with us, ok.
KILL
THEM
ALL."

Instead we get all this soft "hearts and minds" crap.  Lotta good thats doing us. 

[longeyes]

There's a violent druglord living at the end of the block who's wreaking hell on the neighborhood...and we're dealing with him by killing his dogs.

[Tallpine]

In a nutshell the US is in A'stan for reasons of power projection and control over natural resources.  It has nothing to do with nation building and the spread of democracy (whatever that means). 

And therefore nothing to do with 9-11-01. which was the supposed reason for invading.

[AZRedhawk44]

I think we should be dropping canned sunshine on them.  Seriously.

Twice as often on days that the prevailing winds will push the fallout into northwest Pakistan.

Use up some of the old warheads out of our current allotment of 5113 devices.  If we wind up with a mere 5084 nukes afterwards, that's okay.  It's still enough of a deterrent for Russia/China.

Make the uncontrollable regions, uninhabitable.

Burn the poppy fields.  As a warning.  Nuke them if they grow back next year.  As a warning.  MIRV the entire country if they grow back a third time.

Leave. 

[BrokenPaw]

I think we should be dropping canned sunshine on them.  Seriously.

Twice as often on days that the prevailing winds will push the fallout into northwest Pakistan.

Use up some of the old warheads out of our current allotment of 5113 devices.  If we wind up with a mere 5084 nukes afterwards, that's okay.  It's still enough of a deterrent for Russia/China.

Make the uncontrollable regions, uninhabitable.

Burn the poppy fields.  As a warning.  Nuke them if they grow back next year.  As a warning.  MIRV the entire country if they grow back a third time.

Leave. 

Problem with a strategy like this is:

How many (in percentage, and in real numbers) of the 28 million people in Afghanistan have taken action out of a desire to damage the US (or western society, or whatever), and how many of them don't actually care one way or the other, or would support us if they dared?

Roughly 50% of the population there is going to be women.  How many women join the terrorist jihad?  (I seem to recall that there have been some, but they're a vanishingly small number).

So what's an acceptable level of innocent casualties as collateral damage?  30%?  10%?  Or in real numbers, 10 million?  1 million?  If we assume that half of the women alone are jihadis, that's 7 million women who are not.  How many of them is it ok to kill?

Killing innocents over there is going to do nothing to deter the bad guys that remain; if they cared about the innocents in their own country, chances are they wouldn't be the sort to have the ideologies that have led to this.

Whenever the death penalty thread comes up here on APS, even the people who are for it usually have a "better that a criminal should go free than an innocent person be executed" view. 

How can we be any less conservative at the idea of dealing out death to entire regions of a country?

Even if we count as "working for the terrorists" those whose labor in some way aids them (growing food, for instance), how many of those workers do what they do with the intent to harm the West, versus how many are just trying to work to feed their children?  We don't execute as an accessory the guy who sold a burger to the mass murderer the day before the mass murder; how then can we condemn the people who exist at a subsistence level and produce food that happens to end up on a terrorist's plate?

We dehumanize the innocent and uninvolved people of the region at the peril of our moral high ground.  They killed what, less than 4000 Americans on 9/11.  Nuking even a small section of Afghanistan would kill or devastate a far greater number of innocents, and would only galvanize the remaining Jihadis plus give them an American atrocity to legitimately trot out for propaganda.

[AZRedhawk44]

BP:  The Japanese killed fewer Americans on December 7th.

We then engaged in a tit-for-tat war with them, chasing them back to their home islands.  When they refused to surrender, we nuked them.

We nuked their minor population centers as an example of our resolve.  We didn't hit Kyoto/Tokyo because they would have been next if the Emperor didn't take the hint of the first two hits down south (and because the air defenses were weaker down there).

We've done the tit-for-tat.  We've chased them back to their homes.  They refuse to surrender.

If we glass/glow/irradiate a couple dozen canyons and make 10% of the brokeback country of A-stan unliveable, that's okay.  I'm okay with civilian casualties as we do this.  Lord knows that our enemies are okay with civilian casualties against us.

So, yes:  I'm okay with innocent deaths to end the GWoT.  (Not that I think our government will end the GWoT if all our enemies in A-stan were reduced to atomic rubble... but that's a different thread.)

We have to defeat our enemies.

[longeyes]

There is one glaring problem with this tack: Afghanistan is not the source of the real trouble.  Perhaps some re-targeting is called for...?

[grampster]

Fighting terrorism is a whole new ballgame.  I't's not difficult to understand why fighting radical, extreme religous fanatic tribalists choose the backwoods to forment their horror.  Places where these radicals hold sway are usually 3 and 4th world muck holes where the people are easily controlled and rooting them out is more difficult because those same people are not only hiding them because they are terrorized by them, but they are also used as shields.  They are getting their weapons from somewhere, probably from those who we supplied them with weapons for to use against them.  I'm not sure that making an extreme example would work.  I once thought the destruction of a holy place or two might be the answer, but I now think that Muslim extremists, the bosses that is, are only using the religion as a straw man and they are happy that the deluded young men and women who carry out many of their deeds are willing.

Someone needs to decide how to stop this and conventional stuff is never gonna work, ever.  I don't have any solution as many or all of us don't because we don't know the situation well enough.  But the only solution I can think of is finding a way that these evil men are unable to export their world view.  Probably the answer is keeping them contained.  That also means the innocents where they are contained are condemned to a life in thrall to these sub humans, and our young men and women are destined to become world policemen forever.

Maybe the guys that wrote the Silk Road paper have it right.  If civilized nations can keep killing the BG's long enough to crank up the money machine the people will then begin to stand against the BG's.  shrug.

[Tallpine]

We have to defeat our enemies.

There is one glaring problem with this tack: Afghanistan is not the source of the real trouble.  Perhaps some re-targeting is called for...?

Washington, DC ...? 

[roo_ster]

Whenever the death penalty thread comes up here on APS, even the people who are for it usually have a "better that a criminal should go free than an innocent person be executed" view. 

How can we be any less conservative at the idea of dealing out death to entire regions of a country?

The USA is a civilized nation with traditions of morality that date back to Biblical times.  When dealing with issues within the USA, it is appropriate to call on that morality and civilizational capital when making life & death decisions for particular individuals residing in the USA.  Toss in the idea that the USA is a nation of laws, and we can see how we could make determination of guilt and subsequent punishment a long, drawn-out, and meticulous affair.

This is in contrast with the Hobbesian state of nature that exists between most nations, where the only real law is the law of the jungle.  "International Law" is a fiction over most the world, save a few of the civilized nations.  None of America's opponents since the end of WWII have felt bound by such international covenants and made the treatment of our boys by Nazi Germany look good in comparison.

To sum up, applying individual morality, developed over thousands of years in a particular Western milieu, to relations between nations is as inappropriate as insisting one's outdoor cats practice vegetarianism or clothing up swine in cocktail dresses.

[BrokenPaw]

BP:  The Japanese killed fewer Americans on December 7th.

Yes, they did.  But then we went back after them militarily, and (as you say) chased them back to their island.  And their cultural will of devotion to their emperor was such that as long as he stood firm, they stood firm; all we had to do was break the will of one man.  So yes, we did drop atom bombs on two of their cities.  Was that the right thing to do?  Perhaps.  Certainly it was the expedient thing to do.  And we broke the emperor's will.

Not so in the Middle East.  Even if we found and killed Osama Bin Laden, or broke his will today, the rest of the fanatics would go on and rise up with him as a martyr.

The world is different now.  We cannot annihilate a people because a relatively small percentage of that people are fanatics. 

Just because something has been done before, and just because it has worked, it does not make it right.

So, yes:  I'm okay with innocent deaths to end the GWoT.  (Not that I think our government will end the GWoT if all our enemies in A-stan were reduced to atomic rubble... but that's a different thread.)

If you don't think that annihilating an entire country will end the war, then you think we should do it....why?

We have to defeat our enemies.

We do. 

I do not believe this is the way to defeat them.  It seems we disagree.

[longeyes]

The alternative to full-out warfare is to hope for or engineer a Muslim "reformation."  Perhaps we will sap their will with video games, porn, iPads, or Keynesian economics.  Don't hold your breath.  Long before Islam mellows we can expect unleashed hell that will only escalate the problem.

[roo_ster]

We didn't such qualms when dealing with European totalitarian fanatics with an anti-semetic streak (who were but a fraction of the total population):

"You cannot be objective about an aerial torpedo. And the horror we feel of these things has led to this conclusion: if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother. The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet no one has suggested a practicable way out."
----George Orwell, reviewing Arthur Koestler's Spanish Testament for the magazine Time and Tide, Feb. 5, 1938

Why should stone-aged populations of goat-humpers get a pass?

Not endorsing some of the previous views, but I'd like to know.

[mtnbkr]

Why should stone-aged populations of goat-humpers get a pass?

Not endorsing some of the previous views, but I'd like to know.

Because they don't care and don't have anything to lose.  If you nuked Somecrapistan, jihadis would pop up elsewhere to take up the fight. How many nations should we destroy?  What if the Nations and most of the civilians are sympathetic to our cause and hate the jihadis?

They're willing to escalate till everything around them is reduced to rubble.  They're willing to give their own lives.  We have no leverage over them short of killing them to make the individuals stop.  How do you do that without creating so much collateral damage that we become just as evil as them?

Honestly, I'm wondering if pulling out of the ME and buying their oil via the market would make more sense.  Nine years of this hasn't done anything but turn our nation into a police state. 

Chris

[Ron]

They have resources the modern world needs. Our military action seems to be geared toward killing terrorist rabble rouser's and attempting to drag these nations a rung or two up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

[longeyes]

How many nations should we destroy?

How many you got?

We are worried about becoming as evil as they are?  By defending ourselves against the destruction of our civilization?  If we believe in our civilization we will do what it takes to stop the threat.  Whatever it takes.  This debate will change when London, Paris, Rome, or New York disappears in a flash one day.

[mtnbkr]

How many nations should we destroy?

How many you got?

We are worried about becoming as evil as they are?  By defending ourselves against the destruction of our civilization?  If we believe in our civilization we will do what it takes to stop the threat.  Whatever it takes.  This debate will change when London, Paris, Rome, or New York disappears in a flash one day.

The problem is these people don't have ties to any one nation.  Destroying a nation does nothing to stop them, but will contribute towards having more Jihadis to fight.  To an extent, we're causing our own problems. 

Chris