It’s Time To Leave Afghanistan [Archive]

akv

07-28-2010, 13:33

My .02,

Mr. Bestani's article was food for thought but I disagree with his opinions. I'm sure there are parallels between our involvement in Vietnam and Afghanistan, however his Hanoi analogy can be interpreted either way. Berlin and Tokyo are also bustling and vibrant, partially because we were committed and put in the resources to rebuild these countries instilling stability and a chance for prosperity going forward. Hindsight is 20/20 in some ways Vietnam seems less convoluted due simply to IMHO the unique challenges of Afghanistan's mountainous terrain. We chose not to go into North Vietnam and topple Hanoi, what if we had? In contrast, we could take Pakistan over, but the challenge would remain to root AQ out of those dark mountains. Would they find similar cover or refuge in the topography of Yemen, Somalia, etc?

As for the price, we are losing good troops over there, what is the value of preempting further attacks on our shores, possibly nuclear or chemical ones? Their sacrifices should not be in vain, so we need a clear plan, but the cynic in me thinks enhancing our border security is at best seeking a cure for an ailment instead of preventive medicine, but more likely proposing a cyclical solution to a systemic challenge . It is much easier to paint over the holes in a wall than to fix the wall, but what is the utility here besides winning an election? Would enhancing our intelligence capabilities entail developing "illegals" for Afghanistan like the dozen Russians we expelled, or buying more high tech gizmos that can monitor everything but the motivations of the Afghan people?

What if instead we said, America stands with the Afghan people, we will stay as long as it takes to rid the Afghan people of the plague of these foreign insurgents and radicals, to build a secure and prosperous nation and a stable region, which is also aligned with America's best interests.

Utah Bob

07-28-2010, 15:06

America has never had a taste for protracted foreign wars.
Folks were even getting tired of WWII's crusade and we were only in it for less than 4 years.
Drawn out wars far from home have been the downfall of many an empire regardless of how noble the reason for them may have been (and it usually wasn't very)..

nmap

07-28-2010, 15:57

Sten

07-28-2010, 16:07

ZonieDiver

07-28-2010, 16:32

We could afford to stay the course in Afghanistan, what we cannot afford is this multitrillion-dollar healthcare entitlement, the current out-of-control costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and this $800+ billion "stimulus" bill; they could actually have used the stimulus money alone to fund the Afghanistan war for the next seven years.

Granted on most of the above, in that healthcare et al are undoubtedly bloated.

But, to what end are we staying in Afghanistan? What does "victory" look like, and when is a reasonable time that it might be achieved? Oh, by the way, even if we define the above, how do we make it happen?

The "bad guys" will pull up stakes and go elsewhere. Money, which is tight and about to get tighter, would be better spent pre-emptively identifying possible locations and preventing the spread.

Like healthcare, preventive medicine is usually the best path.

craigepo

07-28-2010, 18:26

...But, to what end are we staying in Afghanistan? What does "victory" look like, and when is a reasonable time that it might be achieved?

Unfortunately, it seems that the present fight could go on for a long time. In my opinion, "victory" would be an absence of muslim terrorists attacks on US civillian targets, anywhere in the world. I know of no other way to accomplish this, other than to have forward-deployed troops on muslim soil. A "bug light" effect, so to speak.

Time frame? We have had troops forward-deployed in South Korea for a little over 50 years. In my opinion, the islamo-terrorist problem we are presently fighting is at least as serious, if not more so, than that found on the Korean peninsula.

nmap

07-28-2010, 18:31

The thing with Afghanistan as my limited understanding is, is that if the U.S. pulls out, isn't that like putting a piece of raw meat at room temperature and ignoring it, with the terrorists being the maggots?

Can't that make way for another 9/11?

On preventing the spread, how do you mean the U.S. go about doing this?

Sure. But those maggots exist in a target-rich environment.

Look around. Look at Mexico. Look at Africa. Look at Indonesia. For that matter, look at Pakistan. There are lots of areas with fast-growing, young, Islamic populations that are in largely irredeemable poverty.

If we spend ourselves into oblivion, our global influence will decline. We face, then, a hard choice - do we accept an incremental risk increase from terrorists, or do we accept a world much less amenable to our influence?

By the way - yes, of course we have a great many inane programs. Yes, those programs need to be cut. You're right. But those little cuts aren't enough. We may well need to cut everything...yes, every social security check..every Medicare check...every budget...by a third. Even the official numbers out of the CBO would require a 15% across-the-board cut.

See Table 1 (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10871&type=1)

Keep in mind, if we continue our present policy, we may well see "Peak Army" as Sten mentioned. So...which is the greater risk? Which has the greater cost for our society?

And ZonieDriver brings out another point. Just what are we buying? Are we really getting improved safety from another 9/11?

Eagle5US

07-28-2010, 18:45

Whatever the merits of the war...

Whatever the merits of the Afghan people...

We might want to reflect on the implications of a number.

$13,262,365,556,893.52

Your individual share of this is: $42,944.57

That's the current federal debt. It increases by $4,120,000,000 every day.

Can we afford to stay the course? I wonder.
For some odd reason, given the current "government" I feel this number would be damn near close to what is quoted above even if Afghanistan had never happened.:rolleyes:

Eagle

nmap

07-28-2010, 19:42

Broadsword, those are all nice ideas...it's just they will all, IMO, encounter fierce opposition. Although you and I can discuss the ideal, actual reform is going to involve practical politics - I'm not at all sure that the changes you mention can be made.

Or, perhaps our politicians will become admirable leaders....

Peregrino

07-28-2010, 20:49

Or, perhaps our politicians will become admirable leaders....

The cow being led to slaughter thinks the herdsman is an admirable leader.

Dozer523

07-28-2010, 21:43

The United States won the initial main battle in Vietnam, the Battle of Ia Drang, and Ho Chi Mihn was going to surrender, but because the American media made out as if the battle was a huge loss and public opinion turned against the war, Ho Chi Mihn decided to hold out, figuring America would pull out and he could look like the victor. Never heard that one before. cite?

MtnGoat

07-28-2010, 21:44

The cow being led to slaughter thinks the herdsman is an admirable leader.

A Frinkin Men!!!!!!

ZonieDiver

07-28-2010, 22:31

Regarding Vietnam, wasn't Vietnam a different animal from Afghanistan? I am no expert on the Vietnam War, so correct me anyone if I am wrong on the following, but didn't a lot of the casualties in Vietnam occur because for most of the war, North Vietnam and Cambodia were off-limits to bombing?

I remember having read that a group of generals drew up a list of crucial infrastructure targets in North Vietnam to attack but President Johnson would not allow it.

Also Cambodia had a policy of neutrality which the United States sought to respect, so the U.S. would not attack Cambodia. The Vietcong (or the NVA??) went into Cambodia however and took it over and would attack American soldiers from Cambodia and North Vietnam, then cross back over to rest and resupply, because the U.S. wouldn't attack those areas.

Some crucial Soviet supply lines also ran through Cambodia as well.

It wasn't until President Nixon opened up North Vietnam and Cambodia to bombing, which then ended the war from how it had been going, that this stopped, and Hanoi wanted to talk.

When the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, the South didn't fall due to lack of troops, it was because Congress cut the funding to South Vietnam and it then fell to the North.

The United States won the initial main battle in Vietnam, the Battle of Ia Drang, and Ho Chi Mihn was going to surrender, but because the American media made out as if the battle was a huge loss and public opinion turned against the war, Ho Chi Mihn decided to hold out, figuring America would pull out and he could look like the victor.

Had they just bombed North Vietnam and Cambodia from the get-go, couldn't much of the whole thing been prevented?

I have read it said that Vietnam was a one-year war that was stretched out over ten years (U.S. combat troops entering in 1965 and Battle in Ia Drang in 1965, Saigon falling 1975).

Isn't Afghanistan different from this, in that Vietnam saw a lot of troops lost due to not being willing to use the conventional military to attack the enemy, whereas with Afghanistan, the nature of the country is that one can be fully willing to use conventional military, but purely conventional military doesn't work in a country like Afghanistan...:confused:

I'm not sure where to begin with this 'Cliff's Notes' version of the war in Viet Nam, so I won't.

I will just say that as a history teacher for many years, I am very disappointed in my field of endeavor.

Utah Bob

07-28-2010, 23:28

LongWire

07-29-2010, 03:15

Why did they pour in a bunch of troops after the fact and change the model that worked so well? :confused:

Because we aren't many and don't own battlespace. The rolling stone gathers no moss, but guess what? We planted roots and extended our stay, which needs extraneous forces for security in their own right.

What will Victory look like here? I'm not sure but it better come with a welfare check......I'll reserve the rest of my comments, but I can tell that most of you have higher expectations than what the afghan people have to offer or are willing to provide. My $.02........

JJ_BPK

07-29-2010, 06:10

I am not a quotable historian, but I have a couple observations about types of war.

In simple words I see two distinct types of people that START wars,

A war by a singular state that has all the needs to support it's vision. Be it religious or political based. The entity that starts the war THINKS it can do it alone. These types include WW II's Japan & Germany, France's Napoleon, Rome's Julie Caesar, Spain's Franco, and of course US's George Washington.. They all had the support of the people AND the financial backing of the rich.

The wars started by street organizers that don't have shiite in their pockets, don't have a large base, don't have the countries financial backing. Examples are Cuba's Castro, Ho Chi Min, Che, Gandhi, Moses, & William Wallace of Scotland. These war lords are true street organizers. They "talk good", lead well, are valiant warriors, have commanding presence,, BUT they don't have money. They occupy lands and get local support,, UNTIL they consume all the local resources or are pushed out by another short term "leader" . Some, like Ho Chi Min, Gandhi, & Castro actually go on to create nations. Most are like William Wallace, they are winners for a short period, they lose support, and fail miserably. There are some of the type II's that truly make history, but the majority are forgotten in 5 years as almost rans & coulda wons.

Of the two types, the Middle East has a disproportionate amount of the latter.

The problem with the type II's is the other side never really wins either. Look at France in Africa & Vietnam, England in India, The Germans in South Africa, and the US & UN & NATO in Eastern Europe, when the Soviet Union dissolved.

Where am I going,, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are type II wars. Small time losers trying to be big shots.

In 30 years nobody will remember their names, but they will remember the impact on thousands on lives.

My vote would be to step back, let the losers lose, and strengthen the US from our shores.

I am not an isolationist, just a realist that feels this area of the World is not worth the blood we are shedding.

My $00.0002

nmap

07-29-2010, 11:20

Brush Okie's question triggered my own question - why should the Afghans, whether their army or their civilians, fight this war? As long as we pay them (welfare, in other words) then I suppose their paycheck is a reason. But I don't perceive them as being fundamentally opposed to the Taliban in terms of beliefs, morals, or ethics. In fact, they seem more likely to be natural allies of the Taliban and natural enemies of the U.S. I recognize, of course, that I may merely have displayed my ignorance - but I always appreciate corrections when my understanding is in error.

Dozer523

07-29-2010, 12:07

I recognize, of course, that I may merely have displayed my ignorance - but I always appreciate corrections when my understanding is in error.I love it when you post silly stuff like this. :D Ignorance is definatly NOT your long suit. Brush Okie's question triggered my own question - why should the Afghans, whether their army or their civilians, fight this war? As long as we pay them (welfare, in other words) then I suppose their paycheck is a reason. But I don't perceive them as being fundamentally opposed to the Taliban in terms of beliefs, morals, or ethics. In fact, they seem more likely to be natural allies of the Taliban and natural enemies of the U.S. I recognize, of course, that I may merely have displayed my ignorance - but I always appreciate corrections when my understanding is in error. Ahh yes where do the Afghans stand on the war against the Taliban? Well, for one thing, the Afghans aren't waging a war against the Taliban. The Americans are at war with the Taliban. For years Karzi has been calling the Taliban "Afghans" and going to great length to distinguish them from foreign (unwelcome) fighters. We have refused to listen or take Karzi seriously as a partner or as the leader of the Afghans.
BTW, don't think for one second that the American Liberator/Invaders are not Ferengi -- Don't forget the pattern:
The Soviets were the solution to a weak monarchy
The Mujahadeen and the War Lords were the solution for the Soviets brutality
The Taliban were the solution to the excesses of the War Lords
The US invaders were the solution for the excesses of the Taliban and a good way to get rid of the foreign Muj who had overstayed their welcome
What is the solution to us?

Richard

07-29-2010, 12:16

FWIW - people tend to better grasp the tenuousness of the situation there when I use the analogy of a police officer responding to a domesitc disturbance call at a low-income housing complex late at night after the PD has already made a number of recent drug raids there.

And so it goes...;)

Richard :munchin

akv

07-29-2010, 12:58

why should the Afghans, whether their army or their civilians, fight this war? As long as we pay them (welfare, in other words) then I suppose their paycheck is a reason. But I don't perceive them as being fundamentally opposed to the Taliban in terms of beliefs, morals, or ethics. In fact, they seem more likely to be natural allies of the Taliban and natural enemies of the U.S.

Nmap,

Afghanistan while her own culture and never an industrialized secular state wasn't nearly as oppressive before the Taliban took over and forced the country to march back in time and adhere to their fundamentalist take on Islam. A great number of them while Muslim aren't even Afghans, yet there is a hierarchy where Afghans are looked down upon in their own land. Until someone comes along and overthrows them the Afghans have to keep quiet and endure to survive. IMHO its more granular than well they are all Muslims right.

For example, most Americans are Christians, on the whole my experience with religious folks is they tend to be good people with strong beliefs and moral values. At the same time there are sects of Christians who reject modern medicine for their sick children, or prove faith by dancing draped in poisonous snakes in Appalachia. Hey, more power to them, but if they took over the country had overwhelming weaponry behind them and mandated we all live by these rules how would that go over? I'd guess the majority of their fellow Christians here wouldn't want any of this.

If you look up the horrible changes to freedom, commerce, education, and particularly the lives of women these Taliban brought to Afghanistan in 1996, one could see why the people wouldn't support them once they felt secure. Why should we care, not because we are crusaders, simply because we can't allow this place to ever again be a haven for attacks on America.

Finally folks argue well if the Afghans really feel this way why don't they revolt? The best answer I have came from A J Gregor, a crusty old poli sci professor in college who lectured after there were protests about some neo nazi group allowed to speak on campus.

"People think it's brave to march and protest against Nazis these days, how many of these same people you see out there would be out protesting Nazis if we were in Berlin in 1942?"

fng13

07-29-2010, 15:15

Granted on most of the above, in that healthcare et al are undoubtedly bloated.

But, to what end are we staying in Afghanistan? What does "victory" look like, and when is a reasonable time that it might be achieved? Oh, by the way, even if we define the above, how do we make it happen?

The "bad guys" will pull up stakes and go elsewhere. Money, which is tight and about to get tighter, would be better spent pre-emptively identifying possible locations and preventing the spread.

Like healthcare, preventive medicine is usually the best path.

Best question of this thread.

The lack of what victory looks like is IMHO why this war is "unwinnable." I think the war is necessary to protect us, but as far as "winning" in afghanistan it seems unlikely. Terrorists are not constrained by borders, to me afghanistan is just the current field/stadium, if "winning" means pushing terrorists out of Afghanistan they will just find an away field.

My war strategy for defeating Islam.

Buy 1 Billion Playboy Subscriptions, I-pods, those $100 laptops, and bottles of Jack D and start air dropping them in.

Seems like a cheaper way (fiscally and in terms of human loss) to show them that there are better things in life then killing for allah. :lifter:D:p

Richard

07-29-2010, 16:02

Buy 1 Billion Playboy Subscriptions...

It's already in the works...:D

Richard :munchin

ZonieDiver

07-29-2010, 16:12

My war strategy for defeating Islam.

Buy 1 Billion Playboy Subscriptions, I-pods, those $100 laptops, and bottles of Jack D and start air dropping them in.

During an "OpFor" course in 1980, that was my actual strategy for stopping the "Russkies" if they came screaming across the borders in Europe. I included Playboy Bunnies, lots of "Big Macs", and more than a few Corvettes.

It seemed as good as some of the other scenarios, and a bit more likely to at least slow them down. :D

(The course was taught by a captain who had been recently promoted to 0-4 and told us he was what we all prayed for. His last name was Warr. Har har!)

nmap

07-29-2010, 16:48

During an "OpFor" course in 1980, that was my actual strategy for stopping the "Russkies" if they came screaming across the borders in Europe. I included Playboy Bunnies, lots of "Big Macs", and more than a few Corvettes.

You know....a simplified version might be the answer.

Supply free food. Nobody can resist free food, especially if it tastes good, right? So the Afghans get it. Morning, noon, night - even midnight. Great burgers and fries, chocolate malts, chicken fried steaks with mashed potatoes and gravy, pies, cakes, sweets of every sort...breakfast tacos...donuts....ice cream...fried chicken and potato salad...all they can eat and more!

Now, notice that none of this is expensive. None of it violates their religious code. They can eat to their heart's content.

We make them fat. Fat as blimps. Fat as a Christmas goose. Fat as hogs. So fat they can hardly waddle down the street. (Evil Grin!) They won't have the energy to do terrorism.

Then we hit them with couches and television...and finish them off with video games... (Evil Grin!)

By the way, I attached an evil grin smiley...just in case.... ;)

Dozer523

07-29-2010, 17:17

Supply free food.

Then we hit them with couches and television...and finish them off with video games...
No can do.
McCrystal closed all the BK's, Taco Bells and Green Bean coffee shops before he left:mad:

U funnie

Penn

07-29-2010, 18:17

What is often misunderstood about Afghanistan and Pakistan is their international border. The border that separate the two countries does not exist; one was created, it is known as the “Durand Line” , but the treaty was never ratified by the Khan, nor accepted by the largest, 50 million strong ethnic group, the Pashtuns.

The treaty created by the British in 1893 establishing the border, split the Pashtuns, with half in Afghanistan and half in Pakistan.

Opening the attached link will evidence this fact. Further, Hamid Karzai the duly elected President of Afghanistan is a Pashtun of the Popalzai clan, important because it royal; which is why he said that Afghanistan and Pakistan could never be separated, but were in fact cousins.

The Taliban are mostly Pashtuns.

The northern alliance which we initially supported was not Pashtuns, but a confederation of other tribes, who could only match the political power of the Pashtun, by join forces.

However, once Karzai was installed, I mean elected, the association with the other marginal tribes became a question of political value.

Pakistani ISI is Pashtuns dominated.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/afghanistan_map3b.jpg&imgrefurl=http://rupeenews.com/2008/02/06/spy-vs-spy-in-kabul-london-delhi-islamabad-and-swat-taliban-prepare-for-spring/&h=534&w=636&sz=56&tbnid=8atAXoPZA0AwbM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddurand%2Bline%2Bmap&hl=en&usg=__8wCFe0Z_iKkcJWt8iUeP_6OhIp4=&sa=X&ei=JQ9STPi6MML_lgf36JmjBg&ved=0CC4Q9QEwBg

Spelling error corrected

Richard

07-29-2010, 20:39

What is often misunderstood about Afghanistan and Pakistan is their international boarder.

And that's why I'll never rent out any of my spare rooms to anyone who doesn't have a US Passport. :p :D

Richard :munchin

Penn

07-30-2010, 06:32

Very funny, I LOL, but in all seriousness that is the essence of this troubled region.

The Penn brain is no longer in elementary disorder,
having addressed its broader borders,
that puzzling inherent boarder ,
his attention deficit disorder.

Richard

07-30-2010, 06:56

Very funny, I LOL, but in all seriousness that is the essence of this troubled region.

In all seriousness, I think that is a major problem in many regions of the world - artificially created national borders which hinder the natural and historical migratory flow of large groups of peoples with a collective ethnic identity and contrive to replace their existant historical identity with an artificially contrived national identity.

In the interim - "Prepare to repel boarders!" :D

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

nmap

07-30-2010, 07:27

Demographics is destiny.

Artficial borders have created an inherently unstable situation, which may correct itself over time. An additional factor may exist - differences in birth rates. Rapidly expanding, young populations will tend to expand, sending forth their members to other, less populated nations.

Differences exist over whether this tendency is "good" or "bad". Some, such as Jim Rogers of commodity fund fame, argue that the most adventurous and entrepreneurial members of the population migrate, and hence the receiving nations obtain an ongoing influx of innovative and energetic people, people who strengthen the society and increase growth. Others are less sanguine, and point to the costs of immigration, whether legal or otherwise. Perhaps the rate of migration is the key, with some levels favorable, and others not. Unfortunately, the issue seems to lack solid studies that show the gains and losses involved for the affected societies.

Perhaps Richard's phrase, "Prepare to repel boarders!" , is particularly apt.

If we have a house, with some number of bedrooms and bathrooms, a dining room and kitchen of a certain size, and a food budget with limits, we can only handle so many boarders. Granted, those boarders may contribute some rent - but it may be notably less than the more established residents. However, with lots of people looking for room and board, we can expect more and more people to try and gain entry. At some point, we must repel boarders. But - and here's the problem - with fast-growing populations and little prospect of economic improvement, the population dense societies are vulnerable to instability and failure. I have a strong suspicion that Iran, Pakistan, and...maybe...some of the countries in Central and South America fall into this category. I have read that the population density in Rwanda was the central causative factor of their unpleasantness. When we decide to repel those boarders, societal failure among various states may place our own house at risk. Do we (can we?) fix those other societies? How best can we mitigate the risks to our own house? And how many threats can we (and should we) address?

Personal bias: I think the threats of failed societies are all around us, are increasing, and will continue to do so. I question whether we can afford the blood and treasure needed to stabilize those various other societies. Others have different views, so I suppose we must let the situation develop.

What happens when population gets too high relative to the ability of a society to support that population? It appears the answer is death on a grand scale. For specifics, the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond may offer some worthwhile reading.

Richard

07-30-2010, 07:40

I found Edward Goldsmith's thesis to be of interest - I heard him on NPR the other day - he has a book out on this topic which I am going to find and read.

The Fall of the Roman Empire: A Social and Ecological Interpretation

http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/page53.html

Richard :munchin

akv

07-30-2010, 10:01

Richard,

Goldsmith make one ponder taking solace in Mahan and geography, an ocean on either side and a dominant navy can't protect us from free bread and circuses...

Buffalobob

07-30-2010, 17:58

A lot of interesting thoughts in this thread. Penns description of the borders and tribal alliances was intriguing.

Being a liberal treehugger of a vicious personality with little tolerance for rhetoric with no intelligence, I found NMAPs thoughts familiar and germane.

If we have a house, with some number of bedrooms and bathrooms, a dining room and kitchen of a certain size, and a food budget with limits, we can only handle so many boarders. Granted, those boarders may contribute some rent - but it may be notably less than the more established residents. However, with lots of people looking for room and board, we can expect more and more people to try and gain entry.

In the treehugger world we have studied many times the economics of strip development and population addition. Those numbers are well known. High density development economic numbers are also fairly well known. The economics are in favor of high density development. However in lab rat world we know very well the problems of high density living and aberrant behavior that springs from it. There is a term that Team Sergeant used once that perhaps is appropriate- sheeple. The tendency of people to herd up close together and develop a zebra like mentality that the lion cannot eat all of us at once is somehow ingrained in the genetics. If you do not believe that then take a brand new car to a supermarket parking lot and park it as far away from the door and as far away from other vehicles as possible and go inside and wait. When you come out a car will be parked on each side of your new car and you will have a ding in the paint of each door. People don't use their brain they just herd up

There is a force working at amazing speed that seems destined to change the future and the cultures of the future. That is "instant awareness". Right now it is internet/iphone type communication. People in the world are quickly becoming aware of other cultures and other possible lifestyles. The sudden rise of the Tea Party, a white male dominated group, demonstrates two things. 1 That information is absorbed and 2 that there is a desire to survive and perpetuate the genes (first law of biology). So, in the clash of US principles and lifestyles with communism Chinese style and Muslim extremism Bin Laden style the instant awareness is going to affect the followers of all three sociological regimes. Exactly how is not within my ability to predict but I expect the sheeple syndrome will cause the world to grow more uniform.

Now then back to the original subject. As I mentioned I am a vindictive and vengeful person. I don't give a rats tail about WMDs in Iraq and I never ever will. Osama bin Laden attacked and killed people in the US and he needs to be hunted to the ends of the earth and never given rest nor respite, Read my signature - The man in black fled and the gunslinger followed-. That what I believe and that's how I see the world. God can have his vengeance after I get through but not before. The war should not end until Osama's corpse is laying on the White house steps for all to see.

nmap

07-30-2010, 19:35

but I expect the sheeple syndrome will cause the world to grow more uniform.

That is a powerful and persistent dynamic; we've seen it homogenize American society over the past half-century. However, I cannot help wondering if a new factor will assert itself. That factor is the environmental limit and carrying capacity.

If we're approaching the limits, then continued population growth will result in poverty, privation, and worse. The availability of information will mean that all the sheeple will know (or, at least, think they know) where abundance exists - and they will compare it with their own lot. For that reason, I think that the groups of sheeple will drift toward greater conflict. Those without will seek to take from those who have - whether by invasion (immigration), blackmail, or otherwise.

Penn

07-30-2010, 19:49

namp, sustainability is not possible, the bleak forward view you present is evident in the diminishing supply of product I can procure, compounded by pricing that only a few can afford. Tuna, Wild Salmon, and other fishier are under extreme pressure. They will reach a point where they will not be able to recover, and we will not known save for the empty nets, at which point it will be to late.

BB, The simplistic outline I offered concerning the border and its relationship to Pashtun Identity, was an attempt to unravel the confusion with regard to tribal and National loyalties. I also thought that in understanding clan allegiance, we would have a better understanding of just how those loyalties compromise the ISI and any working relationship with them.
It is difficult to grasp the idea of terrain as a defining element in the ideology of National allegiance; a western perspective. But for clan, it’s the most basic point of power. Land is power, identity, and supports the feudalism that clanship is based on, loyalty to cause is rented.
If this is correct, nation building is not possible in fragmented clan culture. Its resistance to rule is fundamental to the survival of its tribal hierarchal structure. In this sense, from my very limited view, the object should be as you stated: the hunting and killing of OBL and whoever follows him.

Harpy

07-31-2010, 01:10

The northern alliance which we initially supported was not Pashtuns, but a confederation of other tribes, who could only match the political power of the Pashtun, by join forces.

However, once Karzai was installed, I mean elected, the association with the other marginal tribes became a question of political value.

Pakistani ISI is Pashtuns dominated.

The ISI is not Pashtun dominated, but rather Punjabi dominated by the Pakistan Army.

Any unification of Afghanistan has to have a Pashtun leader from the Durrani tribe, not sure which clan though. So the other ethnic groups have to take a back seat and mollified with other positions at the top level.

I think the US should leave Afghanistan unless it has the total dedication to go after the real head of the snake, and of course that is not in Afghanistan.