You can't change cultures, and that's the point the Bush admin doesn't seem to get. They think they can attack any country, get rid of the oppressive government, and the people will suddenly embrace -- starry-eyed and drooling -- all that is new, good, and advanced, and work to build the country.

That's a very idealistic viewpoint, in that 5-10 years of occupation (during which the new ideas are brought in), cannot compete with 1,000 year old (or older) habits, internal hostilities, prejudices, and ways of doing things.

Read these two reports and it made me very depressed, especially the first one:

(Click links to read in full)

Afghan Girls, Back in the Shadows
Home Classes Proliferate as Anti-Government Insurgents Step Up Attacks on Schools
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201404.html

Quote :

"Children's education was once touted as an exceptional success in this struggling new democracy. Within two years of the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban, an extremist Islamic movement that banned girls' education and emphasized Islamic studies for boys, officials boasted that 5.1 million children of both sexes were enrolled in public schools. These included hundreds of village tent-schools erected by UNICEF. Now that positive tide has come to a halt in several provinces where Taliban insurgents are aggressively battling NATO and U.S. troops, and has slowed dramatically in many other parts of the country. President Hamid Karzai told audiences in New York this week that about 200,000 Afghan children had been forced out of school this year by threats and physical attacks. According to UNICEF, 106 attacks or threats against schools occurred from January to August, with incidents in 31 Afghan provinces. They included one missile attack, 11 explosions, 50 burnings and 37 threats. In the four southern provinces under serious assault by Taliban forces, UNICEF said, nearly half of the 748 schools have stopped operating. In the southern province of Kandahar, all schools are now closed in five districts. Attackers have thrown hand grenades through school windows and threatened to throw acid on girls who attend school. In neighboring Helmand province, a high school principal was beheaded, a teacher was killed by gunmen on motorbikes, and half a dozen schools were burned by arsonists. Three districts in the province have closed all their schools."

The Afghan village that uses opium as its currency
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2510906.ece

Quote :

"Paper money has all but disappeared from the village of Shahran-e-Khash. Instead the common currency is the one resource Afghanistan has no shortage of - opium. At the market in this remote north-eastern corner of Afghanistan, five litres of engine oil - worth around £5 - can be bought for 100g of opium. Two bottles of Coca-Cola will set you back 18g. Even the children use opium to buy goods. "All the children put a little bit of opium on a leaf as payment. They ask the shopkeeper, 'Please give me a pen, give me two notebooks, give me two biscuits and three pieces of chewing gum'," explained Shahran Pur, a tribal elder. Afghanistan accounts for more than 90 per cent of the world's opium supply and according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) cultivation in 2006 rose by 59 per cent on the previous year. Cultivation in Badakhshan increased by 77 per cent last year and the people of Shahran-e-Khash said they have been offered no real alternative. "Let me tell you, every member of our tribe, everyone, is aware of how bad this is. We know what sort of crimes might be committed because of these drugs. We feel guilty for doing this and we accept that we partly share in those crimes," Shahran Pur said. "If the government came to us and gave us food for three months we would try to spend the other nine months with an empty stomach and we would stop cultivating this." "

[Edited on May 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/5/2007 4:57:02 PM

No school and loads of opium?!?!

SOUNDS LIKE PARADISE!

5/5/2007 5:00:51 PM

At least in the case of the schools, it doesn't sound like we're failing to get the populace to embrace at least one prorgressive change. At least a fair number of them seemed happy to send their kids as long as it was safe. So the problem -- at least in this case -- isn't that the culture can't adjust, it's that we haven't completely eradicated the oppressive government yet.

That said, Afghanistan is one of the most fucked-up countries on Earth, and will probably never even truly become a nation, let alone a particularly good one to live in.

5/5/2007 5:21:39 PM

When I see video of soldiers trying to tell locals that they need to educate their girls and such, I think it's great, but I'm more than a little skeptical in regards to the impact we can really make.

Imagine if someone occupied the US, then told us all to gay-marry each other.

5/5/2007 5:40:15 PM

^, ^^

100% agreed.

5/5/2007 6:23:40 PM

Quote :

"Imagine if someone occupied the US, then told us all to gay-marry each other. "

Haha, that could go in the Soap Box Quotes thread...

5/5/2007 6:37:01 PM

Quote :

"When I see video of soldiers trying to tell locals that they need to educate their girls and such, I think it's great, but I'm more than a little skeptical in regards to the impact we can really make. Imagine if someone occupied the US, then told us all to gay-marry each other."

At the end of the day, a person, and hence a society, has to take the initiative in their own life. You can't force morals on people or expect them to accept a brand new cultural paradigm just cause a different soldier is telling them what they should do. It's all too idealistic.

5/5/2007 7:26:50 PM

^ Did you mean to reinforce his point?

5/5/2007 7:33:39 PM

^ yes

5/5/2007 7:54:17 PM

There's some other factors here as well.

I'm assuming that nobody here takes major issue with some sort of military intervention in Afghanistan following September 11th. Yes, our actions are largely responsible for the existence of al Qaeda, but those cannot be changed and major incidents like that cannot go without response.

This wasn't one of those situations that called for a handful of cruise missiles, maybe even some B-2 flights, and a couple of special ops teams, either. I'm assuming further that we can all pretty much accept that as well.

Anyway, having assumed all of that, think about the probable reaction from much of the world had we just gone in, killed a bunch of people, and then just left without trying to do anything to benefit the country. I would think it rather negative. Occupation and reconstruction are the expected aftermaths of wars launched by the United States, both from outside the country and inside.

Even within our own history, we generally try to do something good for the guy whose ass we just kicked. We paid the Spanish a fairly hefty sum after our war with them, lobbied for better treatment of Germany after WWI, and did what I think was a pretty bang-up job of eliminating fascism and promoting successful economic recovery in the Axis countries after WWII. It's just hard for anybody to like the big guy that knocks the little guy down, even when he had it coming.

What I'm saying is that we were pretty much stuck sitting around trying to help a country -- and I use the term loosely -- that is frankly beyond help.

5/5/2007 9:39:10 PM

you can add iraq to the "frankly beyond help" category if you haven't already

5/6/2007 12:15:55 AM

Iraq may well be fucked, but it lacks many of the crippling factors that face Afghanistan. At least they have some vague concept of a national consciousness, and for relatively long periods a central government has been able to exercise authority over most of the territory.

5/6/2007 3:01:44 AM

Quote :

"It's just hard for anybody to like the big guy that knocks the little guy down, even when he had it coming."

And that's as it should be.

5/6/2007 9:18:48 PM

Right, but there's an addendum to that: it becomes a helluva lot more acceptable if the big guy helps the little guy up and says, "I'm sorry we fought, man, let's hug it out," which is, in a convoluted sense, what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq right now.

I don't think many people will make a reasonable argument to the effect that we should not have used any sort of military action against Afghanistan, but since it was such a "little guy" country, we were pretty much stuck with trying to help after we did so.

5/6/2007 9:38:50 PM

Quote :

"I don't think many people will make a reasonable argument to the effect that we should not have used any sort of military action against Afghanistan"

Well, I would. You can always count on me to oppose military action, Grumpster.

I certainly have complaints about we carried out the attack.

5/6/2007 9:52:46 PM

Oh, GoldenViper...I said a reasonable argument.

And you're going to have to clarify your second sentence, because I'm pretty sure you dropped a word out of there somewhere.

5/6/2007 11:10:10 PM

i thought we attacked al qaeda, not afghanistan. afghanistan agreed to everything right?

5/6/2007 11:23:02 PM

haha, I taught english in afghanistan last year. and I know for a fact that taking away the taliban was actually a good thing. it's still dangerous, yeah, but nothing compared to what it once was. also, in case anyone hadn't noticed, our media here pretty much sucks. I talked to a ton of Afghans and they love us...both men, women, and children.

5/6/2007 11:29:05 PM

Quote :

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains / and the women come out to cut up what remains / jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier."

Rudyard Kipling

5/7/2007 8:42:28 AM

Quote :

"I certainly have complaints about how we carried out the attack."

I'm not a fan of bombing. Many Afghans also didn't care for the way we blew stuff up in their country.

5/7/2007 12:01:18 PM

^^^^I think he left out the word, how.

Quote :

"I certainly have complaints about how we carried out the attack."

And, because of what everybody else has told me, I think I agree (LOL). I mean, didn't we totally botch the attack militarily?

Quote :

"spookyjess: haha, I taught english in afghanistan last year. and I know for a fact that taking away the taliban was actually a good thing. it's still dangerous, yeah, but nothing compared to what it once was. also, in case anyone hadn't noticed, our media here pretty much sucks. I talked to a ton of Afghans and they love us...both men, women, and children."

?

5/7/2007 12:03:14 PM

Quote :

"I talked to a ton of Afghans and they love us...both men, women, and children."

Because they'd really say to your face that they hate you.

5/7/2007 12:06:20 PM

While her experience is interesting, I agree it doesn't mean that "ZOMFG t3h r m3di4 r t3h sux0r!"

Besides, I'd oppose the US killing hundreds of people even if the population of the country in question was 100% behind it.

5/7/2007 12:11:24 PM

Our bombing is actually really accurate, amazingly so, our intelligence on the targets . . . not always so much. Overwhelming force is the only way to win any war. If you're planning on going in with even odds you're just going to cost both sides more casualties.

The best thing I ever heard about television news is this, "yeah, you're seeing whats happening in front of the camera, but that is like looking at the world through a straw. You just don't get the whole picture." Given how much the average American actually pays attention to the news . . . yeah.

5/7/2007 1:02:51 PM

Actually, many Afghans said the bombing wasn't helping against the Taliban and things like that.

And you realize we killed more Afghani civilians than Americans died from the 9/11 attacks, right?

5/7/2007 1:09:35 PM

Well then maybe they should have taken care of their own country.

5/7/2007 1:25:30 PM

Well I'm not one to defend the USAF, as a general rule I think their return on investment is pretty poor compared to the other armed services, but you can't deny the importance of air power. Unfortunately, while minimizing civilian casualties is a goal of all military operations, ensuring that the count remains less than that of American civilians isn't, shouldn't and wouldn't be in any country.

5/7/2007 1:46:58 PM

If we can't avoid killing noncombatants, we shouldn't go to war.

Of course, I'm not sure I think killing "enemy" fighters is so much better.

5/7/2007 1:55:16 PM

In a theoretical sense, I agree. In a practical sense, I disagree. I'm not sure you and I are going to get any closer on this subject than that.

Though, I will point out, that there is no way of knowing what potential Western casualties were avoided by invading Afghanistan, so comparing how many died on September 11th to how many died as a result of the invasion, only holds water if the Afghanistan invasion was purely retalitory and not preventative. It was really a matter of both.

5/7/2007 1:59:11 PM

right

you sit back and wait for war to come to you

like we did

and wound up with 3000+ dead civilians and a crippled economy

so what would it take for you to be ok with going to war?

an iranian soldier in full uniform carrying an iranian flag bursting through your door and anally intruding your grandmother while on the phone with khamenei?

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 2:02 PM. Reason : *]

5/7/2007 2:01:07 PM

Quote :

"so what would it take for you to be ok with going to war?"

An invasion of the United States, basically. And I still wouldn't support an invasion of the invading country or countries.

5/7/2007 2:05:15 PM

Quote :

"you sit back and wait for war to come to you like we did and wound up with 3000+ dead civilians and a crippled economy"

September 11th didn't cripple the economy by a long shot. It damaged it, yes, but underlying factors already existed that it merely exacerbated.

5/7/2007 4:00:41 PM

We hardly "sat there and waited for war to come to us" 9-11 was on its way in some form or another since sometime after WWII. Financial support for Israel and others in the middle east for decades can't be ignored in that equation. (Not to mention training and arming many of the same groups that would later be involved in Al Qaeda training and support, because we shared a common enemy at the time)

And as for "you can't change cultures" that's not really true either, culture changes constantly... but trying to change it with external force is extremely difficult, and often not very long-lasting.

The only way we can ever make a significant change in the spread of radical Islam worldwide is to enable moderate Muslims to take back the economic and social power in their respective countries. A process that will no doubt take as long (or longer) than it did for these radical groups to come to the power they now enjoy.

5/7/2007 4:13:26 PM

Quote :

"I certainly have complaints about how we carried out the attack."

That's what I thought. That's a stated opposition to the strategy, but that isn't the same thing as being opposed to a military response in principle, which is all I was referring to.

5/7/2007 5:04:32 PM

so in short, GV, you are just an idiot. got it.

5/8/2007 12:00:22 AM

oh my.

5/8/2007 12:50:15 AM

Quote :

"The 10 worst countries for infant motality Nine of the 10 countries with the worst infant mortality rates are in sub-Saharan Africa. The other one is Afghanistan, which has the second-worst rate. 1. Sierra Leone: 282 (per 1,000 live births) 2. Afghanistan: 257 3. Niger: 256 4. Liberia: 235 5. Somalia: 225 6. Mali: 218 7. Chad: 208 8= Democratic Republic of Congo: 205 8= Equatorial Guinea: 205 10. Rwanda: 203 "

So in other words, a QUARTER of all babies born are dead within a year.

5/9/2007 3:59:32 AM

bttt

6/17/2007 3:17:45 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6760791.stm

Kabul police bus bomb 'kills 35'

Quote :

"A bomb attack on an Afghan police bus in Kabul has killed up to 35 people and injured more than 30 others. Police said a number of civilians are among those killed in the rush-hour attack close to police HQ in the city centre. Five foreigners were wounded. It is thought to be the most devastating bomb attack in Kabul since the Taleban were ousted in 2001. "

6/17/2007 9:02:10 AM

you really are a worthless piece of antagonistical crap

6/17/2007 10:39:55 AM

So some crazy fucks decide to blow up a bus, this means what we are doing in Afghanistan is doomed to fail? Sorry, I don't buy it.

You can change cultures, they are always changing and are never static. They don't, however, change overnight.

Quote :

"f we can't avoid killing noncombatants, we shouldn't go to war."

Bullshit.

6/17/2007 2:29:01 PM

first off, posting links to specific attacks indicates nothing. however you are right on the money when you talk about not changing culture. i've been preaching that for a very very long time now. not everyone on earth wants to live like the us. not everyone on earth can live like the us. simple as that.

6/17/2007 2:29:43 PM

Quote :

"So some crazy fucks decide to blow up a bus, this means what we are doing in Afghanistan is doomed to fail? Sorry, I don't buy it. "

You should ALWAYS look at the ORIGINAL post of any thread.

And I only posted about the bus bomb because it was the most devastating bomb attack in Kabul since the Taleban were ousted in 2001.

Quote :

"first off, posting links to specific attacks indicates nothing."

You are wrong. I only posted about one attack, but these "individual" attacks are happening with alarmingly increasing frequency for the past year. Doesn't that say anything, that the situation is deteriorating, and not improving?

But anyway, see what I said above in this same post.

6/17/2007 4:15:17 PM

Quote :

"You are wrong. I only posted about one attack, but these "individual" attacks are happening with alarmingly increasing frequency for the past year."

what i meant was that it doesn't add any proof or validity to your theory (the culture problem, which i fully agree with you on). it's really just sensationalizing because you really could publish stories of good instances too.

6/17/2007 6:26:44 PM

Fair enough; I can agree to that.

What has happened to you? You have become soft! From what I remember last year, you were all about "Kill'em/nuke'em all", just like many of the chickenhawks in here.

6/17/2007 7:34:30 PM

lol remember, i'm for total war. if you're gonna fight a war, you fight it 100%. if the people don't join us, then they are part of the problem. even the neutral parties are part of the problem because they allow it to happen. wipe all of them out if that's what it takes. it is a god awful culture and is completely backwards.

we had no business going in, but the reality is we were/are in so i was for/still am for a complete war, not this handcuffing, handicapping the politicians do. you give the people an ultimatum. and the reason we have to do that is because THEY are the ones who know the enemy, not us

6/17/2007 9:16:27 PM

Quote :

"lol remember, i'm for total war. if you're gonna fight a war, you fight it 100%."

i can agree with that, if the war is a just[ified] war, whether defensive or offensive.

so even though you realize this was a mistake, you still support going all out in this war?

that's like saying if the FBI goes breaking down the doors of the wrong house by mistake while searching for drugs/whatever, and if they find something illegal in the house, they should go crazy and start arresting people, even though everybody knows that was the wrong house to begin with?

actually, that's a weak analogy in my opinion, in that i would support going crazy in that mistaken house a lot more than going crazy in the mistaken war.

to be logically/morally consistent, IF you think it was a mistake going in (which you do), you can't possibly support getting more aggressive, or even continuing with it.

6/17/2007 10:07:53 PM

Quote :

"to be logically/morally consistent, IF you think it was a mistake going in (which you do), you can't possibly support getting more aggressive, or even continuing with it."

hehe see that's the idealist view most dems are in. i think more on the realistic side. realistically i know that even though it was a mistake going in, the reality is that we ARE in fact there. and the reality is that in order to salvage something out of it, rather, in order to win in a conflict that IS occurring (whether it was justified or not, it is happening) then we must fight totally

6/17/2007 11:32:56 PM

Quote :

"to be logically/morally consistent, IF you think it was a mistake going in (which you do), you can't possibly support getting more aggressive, or even continuing with it. "

this really is the dumbest thing i have ever read....

are you kidding me??


please tell me you are kidding...

...ok...your kidding

6/18/2007 5:49:58 AM

Quote :

"this really is the dumbest thing i have ever read...."

Quote :

"...ok...your kidding"

6/18/2007 8:51:30 AM