It’s Time To Leave Afghanistan

[nmap]

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]

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

[akv]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Penn

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.

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0HDV...layer_embedded

Maybe a few could stay?

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Eagle5US

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.

Eagle

http://immigrationcounters.com/

This is just illegals. No counting for welfare types, AFDC, section 8 housing, food stamps, school lunches plus more, plus every damn handout this country has.

Perhaps some think we can live off the Mexican Gov? Go tell them to give you the same deal in Mexico that they expect here.