Afghanistan?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/05/europe/diplo.php

Leaked diplomatic cable promotes 'acceptable dictator' in Afghanistan

So finally, after years of fighting, the White Man [only the Brits so far] realizes that democracy can't just simply be imposed on societies and countries. Especially societies and countries where a large percentage (majority?) of people are inherently undemocratic, and where such people happen to wield lots of influence and power, even military and judicial power.

Is Iraq next? Oh wait, didn't they used to have a dictator?

Oh, and this comes just days after a British brigadier in Afghanistan suggested it was time to talk to the Taliban, and emphatically stated that the war can't be won, which also goes totally against the [official] US stand of "We don't negotiate with TOURISTS", and also the "We will win this war".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7653116.stm

Quote :

"He said: "If the Taleban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this. "That shouldn't make people uncomfortable." "

Quote :

""We're not going to win this war. "

Original article:

Quote :

"PARIS: A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. That was not all. The best solution for the country, the ambassador said, would be installing an "acceptable dictator," according to the newspaper. "The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust," the British envoy, Sherard Cowper-Coles, was quoted as saying by the author of the cable, François Fitou, the French deputy ambassador to Kabul. The two-page cable - which was sent to the Élysée Palace and the French Foreign Ministry on Sept. 2, and was leaked to the investigative and satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, which printed excerpts in its Wednesday issue - said the NATO-led military presence was making it harder to stabilize the country. "The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution," Cowper-Coles was quoted as saying. "Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis." Within five to 10 years, the only "realistic" way to unite Afghanistan would be for it to be "governed by an acceptable dictator," the cable said, adding, "We should think of preparing our public opinion" for such an outcome. Cowper-Coles, as quoted, was critical of both American presidential candidates, who have vowed, if elected, to substantially increase U.S. military support for Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. In the short run, "It is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan," he is quoted as saying. On Wednesday, General David McKiernan, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, called on NATO to send more troops and other support as soon as possible."

Click to read all.


[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 10:06 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 9:43:45 AM

Quote :

"So finally, after years of fighting, the White Man [only the Brits so far] realizes that democracy can't just simply be imposed on societies and countries"

This is nothing new. Truthfully I think some people trully require i powerful leader to keep the country in line which would otherwise erupt into chaos. Since WW2 the US has had no problem with empowering "friendly" dictators around the world; just that this was usually done more hush hush. Arguebly the US contrary to the propraganda it spews does not care so much about spreading "democracy" but spreading US business friendly w/ capatalistic economies. If the target country just happens to have a democratic government that provides its people with political freedom, it's an added bonus.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 10:28 AM. Reason : a]

10/6/2008 10:27:05 AM

Quote :

"Is Iraq next? Oh wait, didn't they used to have a dictator?"

Inappropriate use of "oh wait."

Quote :

"totally against the [official] US stand of "We don't negotiate with TOURISTS", and also the "We will win this war"."

HUH? If you're trying to write "terrorists" the way a southern person would pronounce it then you've failed.

10/6/2008 10:28:00 AM

They're going to have to do a lot of preparing on that public opinion.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM. Reason : opinion]

10/6/2008 11:04:34 AM

The USSR couldnt whoop them and neither can we

will we have similar post afghanistan troubles that the USSR had?

10/6/2008 11:24:19 AM

Without the freedom and democracy argument, what do we have left?

10/6/2008 11:30:26 AM

they are unwhoopable because of the terrain and the societal makeup

there are some areas of the world that are going to be lost causes...that doesnt mean that we shouldnt help. but should only do so when asked

you cant destroy an ideology

10/6/2008 11:30:58 AM

Quote :

"The USSR couldnt whoop them and neither can we"

Completely disagree. The Soviet style of warfare is massing troops and equipment and attempting to overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers. Afghanistan's terrain completely negates the strengths of that sort of fighting. The US, even since our Cold War days, has been a far more nimble and fluid fighting force.

We very much can beat the Taliban if we commit our resources to it, but right now, political considerations and the reality of the War in Iraq as a drain on national resources are hampering that effort.

10/6/2008 11:36:47 AM

Quote :

"Truthfully I think some people trully require i powerful leader to keep the country in line which would otherwise erupt into chaos."

Agreed.

Quote :

"Arguebly the US contrary to the propraganda it spews does not care so much about spreading "democracy" but spreading US business friendly w/ capatalistic economies. If the target country just happens to have a democratic government that provides its people with political freedom, it's an added bonus."

/thread?

Many countries and peoples have tried to subjugate the Afghans over the decades and centuries, but they have all failed AFAIK. This includes Brits, Soviets, and now NATO and US.

10/6/2008 11:43:52 AM

The Soviet argument doesn't hold.

People need to remember that before the United States started to funnel in arms to the Afghan fighters, the Soviets were well on their way to victory. No one is funnelling in the levels or arms that we were shipping the Afghans.

Also, the Soviets were never interested in winning the hearts and minds.

10/6/2008 11:45:08 AM

^true, the war there isnt over yet, we still have a chance to "win" and I have heard many soldier's stories of locals actually supporting our troops (as you know we have to win hearts and minds)

but right now if this "leaked cable" is to be believed, we are on the way to just pulling the hell out like the soviets. I was just trying to draw parallels between the collapse of the soviet union and our current financial difficulties.

10/6/2008 11:46:01 AM

I consider this talk of certain people needing a dictator to be as dismissive and insulting as the US line of spreading democracy by force.

10/6/2008 12:12:38 PM

from the get-go, i've had no problem with benevolent dictorship in afghanistan and iraq.

also, this idea that we are incapable of militarily defeating afghanistan or any other country in the world is completely ridiculous, yet also absolutely irrelevent.

10/6/2008 3:00:33 PM

^what? really? incapable of being military defeated?

granted we could wipe any country off the map, but dont you have to factor in public opinion, acceptable civilian casualties, and possibly even global opinions?

10/6/2008 7:17:22 PM

Quote :

"HUH? If you're trying to write "terrorists" the way a southern person would pronounce it then you've failed."

come on. that's a bush-ism, and we all know it.

10/6/2008 7:23:31 PM

Quote :

"also, this idea that we are incapable of militarily defeating afghanistan or any other country in the world is completely ridiculous, yet also absolutely irrelevent."

i actually believe that the US is capable of defeating any country on the planet, and perhaps almost all countries at the same time. but we are talking about a meaningful defeat here, not just bombing everything back to the stone age.

"defeat" here does not mean just defeat. it means subjugating a people and ruling over them (best: have them let you rule over them). to do that, you can't just kill everybody and destroy all physical structures.

Quote :

"I consider this talk of certain people needing a dictator to be as dismissive and insulting as the US line of spreading democracy by force."

it might sounds insulting, but that's the reality. you can only truly realize it if you live among such people. and look at iraq. saddam was able to rule over everybody and prevent shias and sunnis from decimating each other. sure, he killed many, but that's beside the point. the point is, he prevented the people from killing each other. now with saddam gone, what's happening? same thing would happen if elected rulers were installed overnight in many many other countries.

human psyche evolves. in some countries, it hasn't evolved, having been artificially stifled by religion/rulers/cults/culture/traditions/family/etc. in such countries, the differences between people run so deep that people would annihilate each other if they had freedom. iraq or afghanistan ain't no japan, where people are all the same.

10/6/2008 7:31:09 PM

Quote :

"iraq or afghanistan ain't no japan, where people are all the same."

and its too late to redraw the boundaries

10/6/2008 7:35:46 PM

Quote :

"it might sounds insulting, but that's the reality."

I don't accept that. Remember, there's not much you can say to an idealogue like me. "Without a strong leader, there would be anarchy!" Gee, that's terrible.

Quote :

"sure, he killed many, but that's beside the point."

No way. I'll never support violence and oppression. I don't so much care who's doing these things or what calamity they claim to be preventing. We, as a species, can do better than such Faustian bargains. If not now, then soon.

Quote :

"in such countries, the differences between people run so deep that people would annihilate each other if they had freedom."

I don't buy the notion of some eternal hatred removed from circumstances. Community identifications and their meanings shift based on the times. For example, Saddam's brutal legacy would be one reason why some Shia in Iraq want to kill Sunnis. That history combines with the current political arrangement to produce violence. In a different situation, folks would behave differently.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 8:00 PM. Reason : meow]

10/6/2008 8:00:12 PM

democracy #1; ain't gunna tuk err freedums and gunz!!

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 8:06 PM. Reason : L]

10/6/2008 8:05:46 PM

^^ if you think the reason Shia hate Sunnis is Saddam then you are woefully ignorant of history. Saddam is the cherry on the top of a big ol ice cream sundae of bad blood.

10/6/2008 8:58:19 PM

OK, hopefully this will bear fruit:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghan.saudi.talks/index.html

Sources: Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace

Quote :

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country's bloody conflict -- and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN. The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, has been involved in four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, says the source. The talks -- the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan -- mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies. They also mark a sidestepping of key "war on terror" ally Pakistan, frequently accused of not doing enough to tackle militants sheltering on its territory, which has previously been a conduit for talks between the Saudis and Afghanistan. According to the source, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar -- high on the U.S. military's most-wanted list -- was not present, but his representatives were keen to stress the reclusive cleric is no longer allied to al Qaeda. Details of the Taliban leader's split with al Qaeda have never been made public before, but the new claims confirm what another source with an intimate knowledge of the militia and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past. The current round of talks, said to have been taken two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to come to fruition, is anticipated to be the first step in a long process to secure a negotiated end to the conflict."

10/6/2008 9:31:58 PM

Quote :

"if you think the reason Shia hate Sunnis is Saddam then you are woefully ignorant of history. Saddam is the cherry on the top of a big ol ice cream sundae of bad blood."

Recent history shapes the current circumstances. The two factions haven't always tried to kill other. There's little reason believe they always will.

10/7/2008 12:33:57 AM

Quote :

"come on. that's a bush-ism, and we all know it."

No, spelling the world "terrorists" using the word "tourists" is just fucking retarded.

10/7/2008 12:35:50 AM

Quote :

"i actually believe that the US is capable of defeating any country on the planet, and perhaps almost all countries at the same time. but we are talking about a meaningful defeat here, not just bombing everything back to the stone age. "defeat" here does not mean just defeat. it means subjugating a people and ruling over them (best: have them let you rule over them). to do that, you can't just kill everybody and destroy all physical structures. "

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

We could beat any country in the world militarily. We could do it in most cases, if not all, without really even taking the gloves off. Our level of dominance is well beyond what some of you seem to realize.

We could probably even "rule over" most, if not all countries. It might have to get heavyhanded, and I don't know why we would want to in most cases, but still...we could [i]forcefully[i] occupy (which is really NOT what we have ever done in iraq) if we really wanted to.

In summary, we are the best nation-destroyers in the history of humanity. Nation-building? Relative to everyone else, we're good at that too, but in absolute terms, that's still a mixed bag, at best.

10/7/2008 5:44:40 AM

Quote :

"i actually believe that the US is capable of defeating any country on the planet, and perhaps almost all countries at the same time."

All countries at the same? That's a bit optimistic. The same goes for occupying, say, China or Russia. Without nukes, we'd be pretty screwed. With nukes, it'd be even worse.

Quote :

"In summary, we are the best nation-destroyers in the history of humanity."

No doubt about that.

10/7/2008 12:18:34 PM

I thought this thread was about America.

10/7/2008 12:50:25 PM

Quote :

""defeat" here does not mean just defeat. it means subjugating a people and ruling over them (best: have them let you rule over them). to do that, you can't just kill everybody and destroy all physical structures."

As far as I know, there are two proven ways to defeat insurgencies (basically, 4th-Generation Warfare). Trap has hit on one that's been used for centuries. If we use Mao Zedong's philosophy of insurgents as "fish in the water", then you can do one of two things. First, nuke the water (which would kind of take away any moral high ground we have left) or secondly, separate the fish from the water. That is to say, separating the insurgents from the population physically and psychologically.

Unless the US/NATO successfully invades Pakistan (inadvisable), the Taleban will have a safe haven from which to operate from. But that's neither here nor there. Could this latest round of talks with the Taleban be an attempt to gain political legitimacy (like Hamas in Gaza or Hezbolla in Lebanon)? The claim at least is that they are trying to distance themselves from Al-Qaeda.

Quote :

"it might sounds insulting, but that's the reality. you can only truly realize it if you live among such people. and look at iraq. saddam was able to rule over everybody and prevent shias and sunnis from decimating each other. sure, he killed many, but that's beside the point. the point is, he prevented the people from killing each other. now with saddam gone, what's happening? same thing would happen if elected rulers were installed overnight in many many other countries. "

What is the possibilty that Iraq will be an entity that creates a de facto partition (as opposed to one formally)? Iraq was originally three separate states to begin with prior to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and I think the progress throughout 2006-now seems to confirm beliefs that the various ethnic groups (at least in Baghdad) have displaced the minorities out of their neighborhoods...with the Kurds already operating semi-autonomously as it is.

10/7/2008 8:49:19 PM

lulz

10/7/2008 9:10:43 PM

Hey, what happened to "We don't negotiate with TURRISTS"?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/gates.taliban/index.html

Gates: U.S. would support Afghan peace talks with Taliban

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States would be prepared to reconcile with the Taliban if the Afghan government pursued talks to end the seven-year conflict in that country."

10/11/2008 3:51:27 AM

We must never negotiate out of fear, but we must never fear to negotiate...

10/11/2008 9:16:41 AM

same shit we did in Iraq to reintegrate the reasonable ones into society.

problem in afghanistan is that the radicals are much more organized

this will take a while

10/12/2008 12:36:56 PM

Quote :

"(like Hamas in Gaza or Hezbolla in Lebanon)? "

These organizations have both political and military wings. The political wings engage in legitimate activities. The military wings are terrorist organizations.

10/12/2008 2:51:12 PM