Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan
Recorded: August 14  Posted: August 17
Francoamerican wrote on 08/18/2009 at 08:31 AM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
Intelligent and far-ranging discussion, but I wonder if Joshua and Michael should read the article from the London Review of Books I posted in last week's discussion about Afghanistan. Although they both seem to recognize the truth of the following statement from that article,
"There are no self-evident connections between the key objectives of counter-terrorism, development, democracy/ state-building and counter-insurgency. "
they go on talking as if there were self-evident connections between the tactic of counter-insurgency and the broader strategic goals of counter-terrorism, development, democracy, and state-building---if you just give yourself enough time and money and political will to achieve these goals. While admitting that the US may lack the political will as well as the money and the patience necessary to make Afghanistan into a "stable democracy" (to use the customary boilerplate), they still seem to think that waging a counter-insurgency is a valid policy goal.....if only it were done more forcefully and effectively. But is this true? And did it occur to either speaker that the insurgency may be the direct consequence of the American presence in Afghanistan and its support for the puppet government of Karzai? And
Tara Davis wrote on 08/18/2009 at 11:57 AM
Re: Craptacular Projectionism
Quoting kidneystones: Democrats who opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are supporting these same wars now that a Dem is President. On the busiest street corner near my house, there was a small group of protesters (mostly senior citizens) who gathered at least once a week to protest the war. They started showing up shortly after the invasion of Iraq, and were there without fail for the rest of Bush's presidency.
They were adamant that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan needed to end "NOW!" and that every day "our boys" were overseas was completely unacceptable.
Where are they now? The war rages on. Obama decided to draw down in Iraq pretty much exactly on the (very long) time-table which Bush left for him, and he's escalating in Afghanistan. Yet, now that The One is office, nobody seems to care about a few more dead American soldiers here and there.
If I were a cynical person, I would suggest that perhaps many of the war protesters were much more concerned about which political team was in power than whether America was mired in war.
Toryentalist wrote on 08/18/2009 at 12:49 PM
Re: Craptacular Projectionism
Ideally I'd like Britain to pull out of Afghanistan, we can't go on fighting with crappy equipment, no cash and no real public support. I'd ideally like to return to the traditional Conservative foreign policy of 'splendid isolation'. Plus we're going to need all the money we can get to retake the Suez canal and for the impending war with France.
Francoamerican wrote on 08/18/2009 at 01:39 PM
Re: Craptacular Projectionism
Quoting Toryentalist: Ideally I'd like Britain to pull out of Afghanistan, we can't go on fighting with crappy equipment, no cash and no real public support. I'd ideally like to return to the traditional Conservative foreign policy of 'splendid isolation'. Plus we're going to need all the money we can get to retake the Suez canal and for the impending war with France. Splendid isolation indeed! That was your foreign policy with regard to the Continent at the height of the Empire. Keeping yourselves aloof from continental squabbles while keeping the savages in their place.
You seem to be advocating the exact opposite.
Toryentalist wrote on 08/18/2009 at 02:22 PM
Re: Craptacular Projectionism
Quoting Francoamerican: Splendid isolation indeed! That was your foreign policy with regard to the Continent at the height of the Empire. Keeping yourselves aloof from continental squabbles while keeping the savages in their place.
You seem to be advocating the exact opposite. The long dead Lord Curzon was arguing the exact same point to me, at the now defunct East India club last week: "Perhaps," he argued, 'splendid isolation, sans native-bashing because we can't afford it' would be a better description of a Tory foreign policy." At that silly suggestion I decided to defect to the French.
Francoamerican wrote on 08/18/2009 at 02:47 PM
Re: Craptacular Projectionism
Quoting Toryentalist: The long dead Lord Curzon was arguing the exact same point to me, at the now defunct East India club last week: "Perhaps," he argued, 'splendid isolation, sans native-bashing because we can't afford it' would be a better description of a Tory foreign policy." At that silly suggestion I decided to defect to the French. You are welcome to la douce France. As you know, the French have always had a special though not always reciprocated affection for perfidious Albion.
I don't move in such lofty, and ghostly, circles as you do, but I commend Lord Curzon's change of heart with regard to the heathens.
r108dos wrote on 08/19/2009 at 01:36 AM
Our motives
Aren't we in Afghanistan to be able to secure the nukes in Pakistan went the Islamists overthrow the Pakistani government and generally to help Pakistan defend against Islamists?
We should know that Afghanistan is the graveyard of Empires so we must have the ulterior motive above mentioned--right?
Otherwise we are taking over what Russia tried like we did in Vietnam for the French.
MikeDrew wrote on 08/19/2009 at 02:44 AM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
Wow, I had not heard that we gave the Taliban 44 mil in 2001 for reducing poppy production. Talk about the War on Drugs run amok.
MikeDrew wrote on 08/19/2009 at 02:53 AM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
The questions of political will and of the willingness to use particular levels of force, up to total war, are separate though related issues. Mr. Cohen seemed to pretty much conflate them completely in his question on our willingness to use force.
Lyle wrote on 08/19/2009 at 03:56 AM
Re: Our motives
Actually, no, the US is not trying to colonize Afghanistan or turn it into a Cold War satellite state.
Our intentions are generally altruistic towards the Afghan people, besides being their to deal with the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Lyle wrote on 08/19/2009 at 03:56 AM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
Realist foreign policy at its best.
Francoamerican wrote on 08/19/2009 at 10:10 AM
Re: Iraq Explodes: US Forces Shackled by WH.
Quoting kidneystones: Hell, as far as the bots are concerned, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ended the day George Bush left office. The new term is: humanitarian missions in Central Asia.
Get the memo? It does seem that way. Humanitarian intervention, as that term has come to be interpreted since the end of the Cold War, will probably appear to future historians as a new kind of imperialism, a feckless, toothless imperialism driven by the naive belief that military interventions can somehow transform themselves into exercises in state-building.
gringolost wrote on 08/19/2009 at 05:59 PM
Why is COIN better than Counterterrorism in Afghanistan?
There's always these arguments that COIN is the only viable alternative to traditional kill or capture, counter-terrorism missions. This is because counter-terrorism didn't work in Afghanistan during the early years of the war.
But WAIT. Why did counter-terrorism not work? It seems to me that were steadily accomplishing our mission of "disrupting, dismantling, and defeating" al Qaida (in Afghanistan). Obviously this group is not territorially inclined but we WERE BEATING THEM IN AFGHANISTAN with counter-terrorism.
Now, though we are chalking that to the side because it didn't do enough? How is COIN going to work any better?
Can someone answer this, because I always here that counter-terrorism doesn't work in Afghanistan. But it seems to me that it worked very well. And in fact is working well in Pakistan.
gringolost wrote on 08/19/2009 at 06:07 PM
Re: Our motives
Wasn't altruism one of the motives for Cold War interventionism, both from the Soviets and for the US?
It seems to me that we've always had their "best interests" in mind. It's always just "coincidence" that their interests perfectly align with our motives for intervention.
popcorn_karate wrote on 08/19/2009 at 06:24 PM
Re: Craptacular Projectionism
the "women in black" are still protesting where i live.
TwinSwords wrote on 08/19/2009 at 06:42 PM
Re: Craptacular Projectionism
Quoting Tara Davis: Yet, now that The One is office, nobody seems to care about a few more dead American soldiers here and there.
If I were a cynical person, I would suggest that perhaps many of the war protesters were much more concerned about which political team was in power than whether America was mired in war. It's funny how yesterday's bragging becomes today's whining.
Talk of the war had substantially died down by mid-2008, thanks, we were told by proud Republicans, to the success of the surge. The surge worked so well, they said, that the war was won and off the frontpage of the news.
Now conservatives have cooked up a new explanation for the lack of interest in the war: Democratic hypocrisy.
Have we un-won the war since the right told us it was won last year?
Lyle wrote on 08/20/2009 at 02:10 AM
Re: Our motives
There's truth to that about the Cold War, I agree with you. However, we aren't in Afghanistan because of the Cold War (outside the fact that we left Afghanistan post Soviet times only to see Afghanistan come under the control of the Taliban), but because the Taliban who were in control of Afghanistan in 2001 harbored Osama bin Laden and many other al Qaeda members. Our altruistic intentions in Afghanistan are only secondary to us being there. We didn't invade to stop the Taliban from murdering Afghan civilians or to democratize the country, but to get at al Qaeda. The altruism towards the Afghan population only comes about because we need their help to defeat al Qaeda.
kpsf wrote on 08/20/2009 at 09:25 AM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
Right - just MONTHS before 9/11. And don't forget the Human rights abuses the women of Afghanistan have put up with for generations, while we looked the other way and pumped money into that country. And we're still doing it.
I found it telling that at no time did this come up during this conversation with Joshua and Michael. The Guardian reported that the Afghan government is now supporting a law that allow men to withhold food from their wives in exchange for sex. Women are gunned down and stoned in the street for the least transgression EVERY DAY by the Taliban; schools are burned and blown up to ensure that the female population of that country are forever second-class citizens.
How will that region ever be stabilized when we support these actions by propping up a Governments that allow them? Why are we so eager to trade away human rights abuses when they are committed against women?
Lyle wrote on 08/20/2009 at 11:38 AM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
Realist foreign policy is the answer. For the U.S. to truly not put up with the Taliban's human rights abuses we would have had to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Who would have supported that?
elbo wrote on 08/22/2009 at 08:18 PM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
Soldier Who Didn’t Obey Is Jailed
Victor Agosto, a 24-year-old signalman with the III Corps, ripped a patch showing his specialist rank off his uniform after an emotional hearing in front of an Army captain in which he had told the court he believed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan violated international law, his lawyer, James M. Branum, said. Later, about 20 antiwar protesters cheered Private Agosto as he was taken to jail, the lawyer said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/us/06soldier.html
AemJeff wrote on 08/22/2009 at 08:29 PM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
Quoting elbo: Soldier Who Didn’t Obey Is Jailed
Victor Agosto, a 24-year-old signalman with the III Corps, ripped a patch showing his specialist rank off his uniform after an emotional hearing in front of an Army captain in which he had told the court he believed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan violated international law, his lawyer, James M. Branum, said. Later, about 20 antiwar protesters cheered Private Agosto as he was taken to jail, the lawyer said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/us/06soldier.html I give him credit for guts, but regardless of his personal convictions, it seems like the Army is within its rights to imprison him, don't you think? You take an oath when you join, if you change your mind before you're discharged the burdens implied by that oath still stand, don't you think? He's probably not being treated entirely fairly, if the article is right about other soldiers in a similar situation receiving discharges; but so what? He was, by the way, only sent to jail for a month, according to the article.
Whatfur wrote on 08/26/2009 at 11:01 PM
Re: Worldwise: Stuck With Afghanistan (Joshua Foust & Michael Cohen)
"As of that spring day in 1964, a total of 201 Americans had been killed in Vietnam since 1956". Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, already being told that Vietnam was a mess...already saying himself "I don't think its worth fighting for"...further stated that if he pulled out the Republicans would make a "political issue" out of it. So he didn't pull out... stating to his insiders "I haven't the nerve to do it..."
And Obama??
A bit chilling.
I personally do not want to leave the Taliban there. I think an army of evangelical atheists should be sent in.
|
collapse links
