[Nass]

Hello,

I wrote this as a reply to a friend of mine, regarding the current political debate about US troops going into Afghanistan. I know people in this forum like their politics and come from various sides of the political spectrum, so I wanted to see what folk thought of it. There seems to be a proliferation of "anti intervantion" thoughts about and I felt an urge to slightly redress the balance. I havn't really thought too much about International Relations and Security Studies since I finished my Masters in it at St.Andrews in 1994; there might very well be points I've missed.

Cheers

Afghanistan isn't about "Al-Qaeda" - it's about Geopolitics. Let's face it, even the supreme US commander there admits that there is no Al-Qaeda threat in Afghanistan. But looking at the bigger picture, there is a 'situation' there which affects the West. Let's take 3 potential scenarios:

1) If the 'West' retains influence in Afghanistan, we have a foothold at the rim of the Caspian, a strategically vital area with the potential to deliver much of Eastern Europe's energy in the next 50 years. Russia hasn't hesitated to use gas supplies as a strategic weapon in great geopolitical game and there is little reason to believe that they'll hesitate in the future. We'd have a seat looking at the frontline of Russia's sphere of influence, and we'll be in the backyard of China and India, two of this century's emerging superpowers. Like it or not, that's where a lot of the action will be in this millenium.

2) If Aghanistan remains as the dysfunctional state which it has been for the last 30 years, the rule of nature will apply, and nature abhors a vaccuum. Various spheres of influence will attempt political expansion into there, including Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran and the Taliban. If nothing else, this makes the world a more dangerous place; a potential flashpoint in our backyard. You will note the state actors are all confirmed or suspected nuclear states. Two of them either directly support terrorism, or indirectly fund it, or harbour disaffected non-state actors which have shown little restraint in challenging the western way of life, be it directly through acts of terrorism or indirectly through the toleration of drug deliveries to the young and vulnerable in the West. The close-up picture is itself fluid: the Taliban's political threat to Western Pakistan is well-documented and the idea of the Taliban within sniffing distance of Pakistan's nuclear weaponry doesn't bear thinking about.

3) The flipside: Aghanistan as an organised, hostile state. This is unlikely. Functional state-building takes time and Afghanistan simply isn't anywhere near being an organised state. The country has no effective nationally respected instruments of politics, justice or law and few resources. Its emergence into a credible state will take years, decades.

So, there are various potential scenarios in the years ahead, and of the three, I know which I'd prefer. For myself, for my way of life, for people like me and for my children. And ultimately, because I believe in the Western way of life, for what I think is the greatest good. A cooperative & pliable Afghanistan gives us more options and less potential problems. So to me, the question of America and Afghanistan isn't one of WHETHER, but of HOW.

Let's be blunt, America has been found wanting in the HOW department. To a certain extent, this is explainable: since 9/11, she has thought about America first and everyone else second. 9/11 was a national shock from which the American zeitgeist has yet to emerge. The desire for revenge has influenced her actions from the highest levels (electing the cowboy-like Bush, posterboy for American neocons - with the inevitable shady and corrupt Bush-Cheney oil capitalism connections) to the lowest levels (the publicised disrespect for human rights shown by foot soldiers in interrogations). Bottom line, America doesn't do peace-keeping very well.

But America is a young country, idealists romantics led by a furious, blinding aim to succeed. This drive is what made her the world's most powerful state in the 20th century, and I have no hesitation in believing that America will learn to do better. America's strength is the prosperity of its people and the freedom of its culture. Look at the edges of America's society and you'll find the biggest hicks at one end and the world's most generous, enlightened people at the other. Obama's challenge is to take the best of what America has to offer, and find ways of using her prosperity to build and support states by example, not by force. This is what's lacking in Afghanistan: prosperity and a stake in a liberal, democratic and capitalistic system. Obama has to grab their hearts: their minds will follow. Parents in Afghanistan want schools for their children, a reasonable standard of life and just a little hope for the future.

Like it or not, the first wave of this must involve more armed forces, to secure the country on its right path. Currently, heads of police departments in Afghanistan are purchased positions, going to the highest bidder. The main crop in the country is opium; and it's these revenues that are buying those positions. You simply can't build a country without doing something about that first. America's prosperity means it's about the only state in a position to do that. The Brits have always been especially good at state-building and peacekeeping, but Her Majesty's treasury is looking a bit empty these days. The French are a just a disaster. Which leaves Uncle Sam.

Let's hope that Uncle Sam is all we hope she is, that she's learned some lessons and manages to execute its power by speaking softly, leading by example in the future. If not, God help us all.

[Peter Zack]

And who takes America's place when the country is bankrupt and unable to run around the world and police all this stuff? Noting your location and the British wanting to get out of this role, I can't see the US doing it alone. Canada wants out after almost 6 years of doing this endless task.

Nato seems to be a failure IMO. So many countries want to be in the club but when it comes to the heavy lifting, they want to stand in the background and just be support (whatever the heck that is) while a couple of countries suffer the losses and costs on the front line.

And who takes America's place when the country is bankrupt and unable to run around the world and police all this stuff? Noting your location and the British wanting to get out of this role, I can't see the US doing it alone. Canada wants out after almost 6 years of doing this endless task.

Nato seems to be a failure IMO. So many countries want to be in the club but when it comes to the heavy lifting, they want to stand in the background and just be support (whatever the heck that is) while a couple of countries suffer the losses and costs on the front line.

Peter, not only is NATO a failure but so is the UN.

[Peter Zack]

No disagreement from me. It's like the Canadian (or American) cancer society's. Do not get me wrong. My family has been hit hard by this disease and they have helped to be sure. But only to a point. You look at the millions (no billions) that have been donated and we only have treatments? There have been no cures? They have absolutely no interest in a cure. Just like the drug companies. They want a lifelong treatment they can sell you, not a 6 week permanent cure. Where's the job/profit in that.

These groups (all of them) become animals all on their own that become self sustaining. They all (Nato, UN, Drug industry, CCS etc) all are in the business of protecting their a$$es and selling fear.

The CCS does not want a cure, because they will all be out of a job. The UN does not want Peace (nor does Nato) because they would actually have to go look for a real job with some meaning that produces something. If you listen to the annual speeches at the UN, they just go their (all of them) to stir the pot and get the guns fired up for another year. No leader ever reaches out to an 'enemy' to try and solve anything.

It's the military industrial complex gone to the extreme. Peace means that GE or Lockheed or whatever would have to start building farm tractors. All these world leaders are far more scared of peace than they are of war. Peace means huge defense spending isn't required. Thousands of jobs lost. Turmoil and their small brains can not figure out how to reinvest all those wasted billions to other industries or more worthy enterprises.
How fast would the US debt be paid off if there was peace?

[dadipentak]

"A cooperative & pliable Afghanistan" Yeah--good luck with that.

The discussion of option 2 is flawed: Afghanistan may be a dysfunctional state but it ain't no vacuum, it's a black hole. Every power which has tried to fill the apparent "vacuum" has been sucked in to enormously costly failure. At worst Afghanistan can be a nuisance: it will not be a threat.

We should focus on the disruption/eradication of Al-Queada without regard to national borders and leave the Afghanis to sort out local governance without interference. The idea that the US &/or Europeans can be successful at "nation building" in such a foreign cultural context is ludicrous.

[Gooshin]

The discussion of option 2 is flawed: Afghanistan may be a dysfunctional state but it ain't no vacuum, it's a black hole. Every power which has tried to fill the apparent "vacuum" has been sucked in to enormously costly failure.

only because at any given point one of the superpowers has been pumping it with the means to defend themselves.

The Russians would have had Afghanistan decades ago if the US didnt intervene.

Its a proxy war really. No one will get Afghanistan because everyone wants in... game theory. THey should just decide among themselves who is going to take it.

I think I agree with you in principal but there are a couple of things to worry about. First, it's not a case of being found wanting in the HOW department, that's just America's MO, jump in with both feet, f**k things up, throw more money at it and then leave a bigger mess than the one they started with. I can't see that changing.
The second thing (and this is what really scares me) is, what happens if the likes of Bush and Cheney get into power again? Then it doesn't stop until every last non christian is dead.

The other nations with a vested interest in all this need to get together and make sure America isn't allowed to act unilaterally anymore. If something is to be done in that part of the world, it can't be decided by just a couple of men in the Whitehouse.

[Peter Zack]

"A cooperative & pliable Afghanistan" Yeah--good luck with that.

Nailed it.

[dylansalt]

I think I agree with you in principal but there are a couple of things to worry about. First, it's not a case of being found wanting in the HOW department, that's just America's MO, jump in with both feet, f**k things up, throw more money at it and then leave a bigger mess than the one they started with. I can't see that changing.
The second thing (and this is what really scares me) is, what happens if the likes of Bush and Cheney get into power again? Then it doesn't stop until every last non christian is dead.

The other nations with a vested interest in all this need to get together and make sure America isn't allowed to act unilaterally anymore. If something is to be done in that part of the world, it can't be decided by just a couple of men in the Whitehouse.

Better start praying Gary

[Parallax]

I think I agree with you in principal but there are a couple of things to worry about. First, it's not a case of being found wanting in the HOW department, that's just America's MO, jump in with both feet, f**k things up, throw more money at it and then leave a bigger mess than the one they started with. I can't see that changing.

We have done that in every conflict since WWII. We go in guns ablazin' like Yosemite Sam going into the bar in the Bugs Bunny cartoon, we stop, look around and say "now what?" We still haven't learned the one basic tenet of warfare that all of our enemies have: If you aren't going to fight to win, STAY HOME. (And yes, in a lot of those, we should have stayed home regardless.)

We have done that in every conflict since WWII. We go in guns ablazin' like Yosemite Sam going into the bar in the Bugs Bunny cartoon, we stop, look around and say "now what?" We still haven't learned the one basic tenet of warfare that all of our enemies have: If you aren't going to fight to win, STAY HOME. (And yes, in a lot of those, we should have stayed home regardless.)

America did pretty good in WWII. It was also the last time it was involved in a legitimate war. Japan attacked first and America responded and got the job done. Terrorism is a criminal act, America maybe should have let the agencies that deal with crime respond instead of throwing the kitchen sink in response in the case of the present FUBARs.

[reeftool]

America does fine with the war part. The problem is ages old and has plagued every nation. It the "Now that we have it, what do we do with it?" problem. No matter how well meaning, sooner or later a nation who invades another is nothing more than a foreign invader who took over their land. The US doesn't have the stomach to conquer. We take over and then start the democracy routine. Since the people of these nations don't believe in democracy, they go to war with the election winners and the crap starts all over again. The US will never admit to invading purely for strategic reasons, even if that is the truth. It's also the reason Obama isn't bringing home the troops like he promised. There is a strategic importance to a western presence there and Al-Queada has provided the reason for that presence.

America did pretty good in WWII. It was also the last time it was involved in a legitimate war. Japan attacked first and America responded and got the job done. Terrorism is a criminal act, America maybe should have let the agencies that deal with crime respond instead of throwing the kitchen sink in response in the case of the present FUBARs.

We did pretty good because real men did what was needed to W-I-N. Since then we've had a bunch of panty waists afraid to do what needs to be done.

We did pretty good because real men did what was needed to W-I-N. Since then we've had a bunch of panty waists afraid to do what needs to be done.

America did pretty good because it was fighting for a tangible reason. The problem with you armchair strategists is you think Rambo was a real person, America has a right to do whatever it likes and that you are somehow superior to anyone from any other part of the world. Some of you people need to get a passport and go see some other parts of the world. You might find it humbling.

America did pretty good because it was fighting for a tangible reason. The problem with you armchair strategists is you think Rambo was a real person, America has a right to do whatever it likes and that you are somehow superior to anyone from any other part of the world. Some of you people need to get a passport and go see some other parts of the world. You might find it humbling.

who, or what is "Rambo"