Afghanistan and NATO

[mike777]

NATO countries have been in Afghanistan for 7 years.

 

What should NATO and Obama do in Afghanistan?

Do you call for more troops?

Do you pullout all the troops?

Should Nato countries spend billions and billions more in Afghanistan or spend it at home on health care, education and other issues?

 

If one cannot beat insurgents with military force and NATO cannot "fix" Afghanistan's poverty, illiteracy and other causes of instability what can they do?

How do you measure success?

[Al_U_Card]

Can you use several billions of the bailout to replace the CIA's drug revenues from Afghani heroin? While the CIA might be interested it is unlikely that the others in the coterie of industrial exploiters and arms merchants will put aside the lucrative side of conflict. Unless we send the troops to Pakistan instead?

[Winstonm]

Better question: Why is there still a NATO at all?

 

The reason for the NATO alliance was the threat of soviet Russia. That threat is gone. China is a Most Favored Nation trade partner, and thus no threat.

 

The only threats left are the phantom longings and memories concerning the Cold War that neocons hold so dearly, and their illusions of a global holy war against terrorists, a battle between good and evil that Rand deduded is better fought with local police and intelligence than with U.S. military might.

 

The U.S.S.R. learned that there is no win in Afghanistan. The U.S.A. will learn the same lesson, with or without NATO troops.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

assume for one second, what happens if they loose the fight in

Afghanistan.

What will happen?

 

The current goverment in Pakistan will fall, it may even have been

got elected in a democratic way, what ever this may mean.

Fundamentalist will take over, and Pakistan has Atom bombs, and

the groups in Pakistan have not demonstrated yet, that they want

to live, in contrast to ruling groups in Iran, whatever Fox News tells

you, Iran is a fairly predictable player in the area.

 

Oh I forgot, there is also a conflict with another country out there, and

this country has also Atom bombs.

 

Do you like the above scetched scenario?

 

If not, you better pray that they can stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Al_U_Card]

The kingdom of Afghanistan was a regional power for hundreds of years. It comprised its current area plus Wiziristan and most of Pakistan. It was the home of the Jihadis and the Talibs that fought the British in the Kush and Punjabi regions starting in the 1850s.

 

Kabul was a cultural and education centre as well as a trade hub for decades. (up to the 1950s). What happened? Might have something to do with international intrigue and the influence of soviet Russia as well as the emergent Red Chinese...

 

Either way, China will move in as soon as the west moves out. Will that make it better? It will definitely make it quieter....Tibet anyone?

 

The US should "help" Pakistan by leaving Afghanistan and taking up permanent residence to oversee Karachi and Islamabad. The rest of the country makes Kandahar look like a picnic.

[Winstonm]

If not, you better pray that they can stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

I am ceaselessly amazed at the concept that one person or one nation has the ability to change the actions of another person or nation. The only method to accomplish this goal is total brute force - enslave the other country or person to your will.

 

Stabalize? As Iran was stabalized by the U.S. backing of the Shah, a U.S./British puppet who helped British Petroleum plumder that nation's oil reserves?

 

If the U.S. is to trot around the world emposing our will militarily on other nations then call it what it is - warmongering.

[P_Marlowe]

If not, you better pray that they can stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

I am ceaselessly amazed at the concept that one person or one nation has the ability to change the actions of another person or nation. The only method to accomplish this goal is total brute force - enslave the other country or person to your will.

 

Stabalize? As Iran was stabalized by the U.S. backing of the Shah, a U.S./British puppet who helped British Petroleum plumder that nation's oil reserves?

 

If the U.S. is to trot around the world emposing our will militarily on other nations then call it what it is - warmongering.

Ok.

 

I did not like the intervention into Iraq.

Personally I believe, that war is never a solution,

hence I am not even sure, I approve the start

of war against the Taliban, but at least you had

a case.

 

Now, if you had to make a decision, it helps to look

at the history, after you made the decision, you

better make sure, that your decision was the right

one, looking into the past does not help oyu if you

are in the middle of a storm.

 

As it was, the sitiuation in Afghanistan and Pakistan

got a whole lot worse after the US made the brilliant

(sarcasm) decison to go into Iraq.

It was stupid at the time, and the worst scenarios

predicted got true, maybe the scenarios were even

rosy.

 

Now you have the mess, and you better make sure you

clean it up.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

As it was, the sitiuation in Afghanistan and Pakistan

got a whole lot worse after the US made the brilliant

(sarcasm) decison to go into Iraq.

It was stupid at the time, and the worst scenarios

predicted got true, maybe the scenarios were even

rosy.

 

I do not disagree that we have made it worse and have ourselves a mess with which to deal - question is how best to do that.

 

Even moderate Muslims take offense to non-Muslim interventionism. The best starting point IMO would be withdrawl of U.S. troops, a point made by Ron Paul pre-election. Trying to use the non-Muslim U.S. military to alter the course of Muslim territories is a self-defeating strategy.

 

Trouble is, I agree with your assessment - we either have to hope that Pakistan and Afghanistan can stabalize by themselves or we have to conguer them - totally, and impose our will - which will create more enemies and more problems.

 

Our interventionism has caused our problems - we seem to like circular war to match our cicurlar reasoning skills.

[P_Marlowe]

As it was, the sitiuation in Afghanistan and Pakistan

got a whole lot worse after the US made the brilliant

(sarcasm) decison to go into Iraq.

It was stupid at the time, and the worst scenarios

predicted got true, maybe the scenarios were even

rosy.

 

I do not disagree that we have made it worse and have ourselves a mess with which to deal - question is how best to do that.

 

Even moderate Muslims take offense to non-Muslim interventionism. The best starting point IMO would be withdrawl of U.S. troops, a point made by Ron Paul pre-election. Trying to use the non-Muslim U.S. military to alter the course of Muslim territories is a self-defeating strategy.

 

Trouble is, I agree with your assessment - we either have to hope that Pakistan and Afghanistan can stabalize by themselves or we have to conguer them - totally, and impose our will - which will create more enemies and more problems.

 

Our interventionism has caused our problems - we seem to like circular war to match our cicurlar reasoning skills.

One starting point:

 

Solve the palestine problem.

 

The US believes, that the muslim world takes it for granted,

that the US is neutral, but the past showes and proves, that

the US is heavily favouring Israel.

This does not mean, that the US has to give all the muslims

areasking, but it means, that the US needs to pressure Israel

hard, that it makes a real effort to make its peace with its

neighbors.

Currently if one rocket gets fired a across the boarder the

war mongering starts.

It takes time to build up trust.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: And it would be a brilliant idea, if a US president starts with

this, when his presedency begins, not when it ends.

[kenberg]

Israel has been at war, at some times more actively than at other times, during its entire 61 (I believe I have the date right) years of existence. That situation won't change. Call me a pessimist, but that's what I think.

 

Now that's one hell of a situation, and I hope that we don't fine ourselves in the same sort of jam. I don't know diddly squat about Afghanistan. I read Frederick Forsythe's The Afghan, a very good book of intrigue, but I still am totally ignorant of the place. I was/am disturbed by folks saying that we need to take troops out of Iraq and put them into Afghanistan. As I get it, one of our past errors was prematurely taking troops out of Afghanistan and putting them in Iraq. I don't favor repeating this error in the reverse geographical direction. I am disturbed by folks saying that we rushed into Iraq without fully considering the consequences but now we should significantly up our commitment in Afghanistan without any serious congressional debate, or really any debate, at all. (yes Mike in his post is seeking such debate but it needs to be carried out by someone who knows a lot more than I do).

 

Perhaps we really need to be in Afghanistan. Perhaps, although I would say less likely, someone, not me, actually understands what an achievable objective is there. Before we kill a lot more people, especially a lot more of our troops, I would like to hear something about where this will all end.

 

In the case of Israel and its neighbors, I believe the answer is that it won't end. I hope there might be a better answer for us, but I haven't heard it.

[Winstonm]

One starting point:

 

Solve the palestine problem.

 

....but it means, that the US needs to pressure Israel

hard, that it makes a real effort to make its peace with its

neighbors.

 

 

I agree. Too bad this sentiment gets us labeled by the Right as anti-semitic, Nazi-appeasing terrorist pals.

 

Palestine is certainly not blameless - neither is Israel. The U.S. would do well to balance its perspective to today's reality than to continue to act as the appointed world apologist for the war atrocities that the U.S. did not condone nor commit.

 

Just as Pearl Harbor did not justify eternal warfare on Japan, the holocaust does not condone eternal justification for Israeli aggression against its perceived enemies.

 

Lest we forget, the holocaust affected gypsies and other minority groups and was not a war on Jews - if anything, it was about proving Hitler's ridiculous Mein Kampf theory of Nordic-lineage racial supremacy.

 

I doubt many Semitic Muslim coutries are interested in reviving or supporting Hitler's idiotic theory of Nordic-lineage racial supremacy - so I find the comparisons of Palestinian threats or Iranian threats to the threat of a Hitler-led Nazi White-supremacy Germany to be both tiring and more than a little disinginuous.

 

Tragedy? Yes. Horror? Yes. But the madman who did it is gone, and the country who backed him collapsed.

 

Better to try to move on than continue to retry the past.

[Fluffy]

I am ceaselessly amazed at the concept that one person or one nation has the ability to change the actions of another person or nation. The only method to accomplish this goal is total brute force - enslave the other country or person to your will.

instead of enslaving, can't you just anihilate every citizen?, that way it is harder that they emancipate.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps we really need to be in Afghanistan. Perhaps, although I would say less likely, someone, not me, actually understands what an achievable objective is there. Before we kill a lot more people, especially a lot more of our troops, I would like to hear something about where this will all end.

 

I'm with you, Ken. We were told the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary to capture Bin Laden, who was being protected by the Taliban. We overthrew the Taliban, then proceded to ignore Bin Laden. (Remember Bush changing his tune to "We don't really care about bin Laden - he's not our priority.")

 

Now it seems we are supposed to believe we need a new troop surge to prevent the Taliban from wresting control back.

 

This is a non-important, non-stategic geographical area that has been run by tribal authorities its entire history. There is no point any longer to a military intervention. Invervention with the Taliban is truly U.S. military versus a fundamental Islamic creed - there can be no win for the U.S. regardless of the outcome.

 

What we need to learn as a nation is the limits of military power - what it can and cannot accomplish. But we seem to get a kick out of playing cowboy and starting shooting wars - but just as it is dumb to bring a knife to a gunfight, the U.S. should learn it is stupid beyond measure to continue to bring guns to a chess match.

[Al_U_Card]

Once upon a time, there was Salladin....and since he went to collect his virgins, the arab world has been in disarray (except for some Turkish rule for a bit) because non of them are ARABS!!! (Arabs are hinterland dwelling gypsies that no self-respecting Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, Iraqi, Iranian......wants to be considered as.)

Israel has survived mostly because the arab nations hate and fear each other almost as much as they hate the Americans....errr...Christians....errr....fundamentalists....errr...Israelis. (Remember that just before the state of Israel was created, the Jews were generally welcomed to come and establish themselves in the land of Canaan.)

 

The fact that we are seeing the zealous expansion of the American empire is just that, a fact. They will come and they will go (so the old Afghani saying goes) the only problem being that innocent lives will go with them...

[Gerben42]

I'm pessimistic about diplomacy finding a solution for this war. There is just too much hatred and distrust on both sides. The time in which Israel was founded was completely different from today, so it is not possible to look at the current situation and claim what was right then, is right now.

 

One should learn from the past, but also it is very important to leave it behind us. Every country has skeletons in their closets. We can't keep pointing out the distant past and take rights from that. Unfortunately in Palestine & Israel, the differences from a distant past has been dragged into the present on many levels. But in the end, most of the inhabitants on both sides just want to live their lives. But small groups will mess up this desire and there will be never-ending conflict. At least it will go on for quite a while, I fear.

[helene_t]

I thought it was about Afghanistan? Israel/Palestina is somehow linked to almost all conflicts that involve muslims. In the hypothetic case that the Israel/Palestina conflict was resolved, fanatic muslims would find something else to draw the attention away from their own mess.

 

And maybe lots of westerners would join the game. Or maybe not. Maybe we are closet antisemitists and welcome any excuse for damning Israel. It may have nothing to do with the Palestinians.

[P_Marlowe]

I thought it was about Afghanistan? Israel/Palestina is somehow linked to almost all conflicts that involve muslims. In the hypothetic case that the Israel/Palestina conflict was resolved, fanatic muslims would find something else to draw the attention away from their own mess.

 

And maybe lots of westerners would join the game. Or maybe not. Maybe we are closet antisemitists and welcome any excuse for damning Israel. It may have nothing to do with the Palestinians.

Israel/Palestina is always used, to show that the US is anti muslim,

if a muslim leader wants to get popular he uses this conflict.

 

If Israel makes it Peace with Syrien and gets a working relation ship,

with Iran lots of things would improve.

The point is Israel needs its neighbours and the neigbours could also

need Israels help.

But making peace means also, that the peoble in Palestine see that

there is progress with regards to social and economic things in those

areas.

 

You dont need to convince the fanactic muslims, you need to get the

majority of the muslims, the moderates on your side.

.................................................................................................

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Of course making peace means also that Isreal gets the fundamental

Jew in check, ... you remember Rabin was not killed by Muslim terrorists.

The last effort to keep the fundamental Jew in check was done by Sharon

as he forced several Jew to leave certain areas using the armed forces,

and it was just a tiny effort.

[Rossoneri]

NATO = No Action, Talk Only?

 

Further elaboration needed? :)

[Al_U_Card]

They sucked us (Canada) in for combat as opposed to peace-keeping...

[Aberlour10]

Once is absolutely sure, there is no chance for a real democratic state in the foreseeable future. The choice remains between, NATO friendly regime with western marionette at the top, strong islamic central regime, or balkanized small states controled by Drug Lords.

 

Robert