Pharyngula

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | December 6, 2009 10:18 AM

Let's see, Isherwood. How does trying to subdue a country that has never been subdued help our national security? We keep the Taliban at bay until we move out. Do you expect us to stay there for the next 200 years? Two thousand years?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 6, 2009 10:26 AM

Not one of Zimmerman's best efforts.

Posted by: OurDeadSelves | December 6, 2009 10:27 AM

Well, it's a little too late now to make up for 9/11, don't you think?

Besides, not only is war wrongwrongwrong, but no one has been able to succeed in Afghanistan, militarily speaking. (Besides that, I'm not even sure why "success" in Afghanistan would even mean at this point. Getting rid of the Taliban? Al Qaeda? Good luck with that.)

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 6, 2009 10:33 AM

But I wonder what should we have done after the 9/11/2001 attacks. Should we have just said "OK, don't worry about it. You Muslim idiots can kill us anytime you want."

No, but you do need to get a sense of proportion. Engaging in a war that is killing hundreds of innocent civilians isn't helping.

Terrorists are criminals, and you don't wage war on criminals, you use the police, the courts and the law. If adequate legal structures are absent - as they are for the most part at the global level - you work to create them.

As has been frequently pointed out, more Americans die from inadequate health care every few months than were killed on 9/11; Do the math.

Posted by: nuada-oz | December 6, 2009 10:36 AM

The best way to deal with groups like the taliban is to not create them in the first place. The taliban were paid large sums of money to fight the soviet union, then were left cold when they were no longer useful, and so they turned on the USA.
Also, reducing world poverty would do more to produce security than bombing civilians in a third world country.

Posted by: OurDeadSelves | December 6, 2009 10:40 AM

The best way to deal with groups like the taliban is to not create them in the first place.

And an interesting point on the Taliban: they actually pay their fighters a living wage (about $300/month), whereas the Afghan security forces only pay about $100/month for their low-level people.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | December 6, 2009 10:49 AM

BTW, we're friends in real life, so don't get too rough with me. ;-)

I hope it didn't come across that I was being too rough, but keep in mind that I am a New Atheist, and can't help but be rude.

But honestly, I don't see a possible military solution. And with the analogy of disease, I think it is not such a good idea to keep trying the same things that other people have been failing with, like foxglove for cancer, or other cures "They" don't want you to know about.

Posted by: gski | December 6, 2009 10:55 AM

It's Obama's war now? I guess Bush is off the hook.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 10:58 AM

I think ObamaLBJ's's plan is to train the AfghanistanSouth Vietnamese army to keep the TalibanVietcong at bay after we leave. - bobxxxx

Fixed for you. I guess Obama is too young to remember the Vietnam War.

AS for what should "we" have done after 9/11. First, try a bit harder to get the Taliban to hand Osama bin Laden over (AFAIK there is no evidence they knew what he was planning), while preparing a special forces operation to capture or kill him and his main lieutenants. Second, launch that operation if negotiations do not succeed. Third, if you must, targeted strikes against government buildings in Kabul: bound to kill some innocent people, but at least with a chance of killing some Taliban leaders and so deterring future support for terrorists. Fourth: do not start a war, in which you will be allied with scumbag warlords, many thousands of civilians will die, and of which the end cannot be foreseen.

I'm not sure the failings of others in the past is a good argument [emphasis added]

Another one too young to remember the Vietnam War? Also, ignoring the fact that others have failed in the past is just fucking stupid: it tells you how difficult it's going to be.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 6, 2009 11:04 AM

Another one too young to remember the Vietnam War? Also, ignoring the fact that others have failed in the past is just fucking stupid: it tells you how difficult it's going to be.

If the British could not subdue the Afghans in the C19th, a time when the British excelled at crushing tribal rebellion, then it is clear sign that Afghanistan is not an easy place in which to conduct military operations. Add to that an army that lacked, and still to an extent does lack, training in counter-insurgency, and the magnitude of the task becomes clear.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 6, 2009 11:09 AM

But I wonder what should we have done after the 9/11/2001 attacks. Should we have just said "OK, don't worry about it. You Muslim idiots can kill us anytime you want."

See comments 8 and 18. If the CIA can't go in and bring the criminals out so they can be brought to court, hire the Mossad to do it.

(It's probably not recorded anywhere, but I've held this opinion since before the war even started.)

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 11:13 AM

What 'Tis Himself, OM says@15. But Iraq is easy in terms of topography, compared to Afghanistan. Even Vietnam was easier: you can defoliate jungles, but you can't flatten mountains. Moreover the Taliban have a "safe haven" over the border in Pakistan, something the Vietcong had, but Iraqi resistance never has, many claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Marching (or flying) into Afghanistan and taking Kabul and the other main towns is easy for a well-equipped force. Ruling the country, or getting a puppet to do it for you, requires more troops for longer than it is feasible to supply: the Taliban's main source of income may now be protection money they are paid not to attack the supply convoys. None of your local allies will be reliable, the locals will increasingly hate you (particularly if you try to destroy the country's economy by eliminating poppy), and you will lose support at home. Trying to hold Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union. Will it do the same to the USA?

Posted by: Eitch-Bee-Bee | December 6, 2009 11:18 AM

#5

"I think Obama's plan is to train the Afghanistan army to keep the Taliban at bay after we leave."

Russians tried exactly this tactics in the 1980s, and it did not exactly work out for them.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 6, 2009 11:21 AM

It's Obama's war now. He bought into it.

In 1968 the Vietnam fiasco stopped being Johnson's War and became Nixon's War. The same criteria applies to Bush and Obama.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 11:26 AM

I don't like the Afghanistan/Vietnam comparison. It seems to me like more like an emotional appeal. And most of the similarities seem to be superficial. - deep

How about some actual arguments to this effect, rather than mere assertion? I'd guess you don't like it because it says the US is going to lose.

He will let our enemies know that when you attack our country, we will do whatever we have to do to defend ourselves. Though it may be long, it may be difficult, we will do whatever it takes to keep it from happening again. - harv

You're assuming the USA is going to win. This is extremely unlikely. Sooner or later the political pressure at home to withdraw will be too great, the troops will come out, and the puppet government will fall, just as in Vietnam. Best to cut the loses now.

Posted by: C | December 6, 2009 11:34 AM

I usually agree with most of what I read on this blog, when it sticks to exposing religious fundamentalism, but I have to disagree with you on this one, PZ.

If you are going to engage a guerrilla opponent you leave them no place to hide, or be harbored. You warn the civilians, you carpet bomb it back to the stone age, you go in afterwards and remove whatever is left, and then you Marshall Plan them back into the world's good graces. That's it. You either commit or you don't. Afghanistan has had years to give up the Taliban and Bin Ladin if they were serious-so either they are 'serious' and get to deal with the aftermath (the 'be careful what you wish for' option) or we pull out and leave them to their own devices to implode on their own. The down side of that is Pakistan has nuclear capability and the Taliban fighters are not constrained to borders. Neither option is palatable, but armchair generals that ruminate over current policy with all the benefits and leisure of past history AND not being shot at at the same time aren't exactly the best people to make those kinds of decisions. When has Micheal Moore been shot at lately?

Posted by: Bobber | December 6, 2009 11:34 AM

So is this the pattern when the U.S. tries military solutions in the developing world?

Overthrow the unfriendlies, prop up a corrupt ally, alienate the local population and turn the overthrown unfriendlies into nation-defending patriots; waste billions of dollars and who knows how many lives in pursuit of a policy that cannot succeed; leave at a predetermined date and declare "victory".

With the Bush regime it was probably a foregone conclusion that the troops would be going in - their idea of surgery was to use sledgehammers over scalpels (and in the base of bin Laden, surgery was called for). Still, they compounded the error by not following up with massive - and I mean a flood - of economic development assistance dollars. For every dollar spent on killing the Taliban and al Qaeda, there should have been ten spent on development.

And we should have been dealing directly with the Afghani people, not individuals we decide to be their "leaders". Are the voices of the ordinary Afghanis heard in the corrupt tones of Hamid Karzai? I somehow don't think so.

But no; far better for us to repeat the mistakes made by other empires, I guess. And the killing and the waste goes on.

Posted by: Sundog | December 6, 2009 11:39 AM

I have to say, his isn't one of your better questions, Doctor Myers. The last person to die in the Afghan War will die for exactly the same thing the FIRST person did - for his beliefs, religious, patriotic, or other.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 6, 2009 11:41 AM

An earnest young man with a capo!

Worth reading on the subject, IMO: The war we can't win.

Posted by: thepugilist | December 6, 2009 11:44 AM

I think that it became Obama's war, for better or for worse, when he decided to escalate it, therefore continuing it. At that point he removed the albatross that is Afghanistan from W's neck and placed it upon his own. I don't like it, but it is so.

Posted by: wintermute | December 6, 2009 11:47 AM

But I wonder what should we have done after the 9/11/2001 attacks. Should we have just said "OK, don't worry about it. You Muslim idiots can kill us anytime you want."

It's worth looking at what Al Qaeda said their goals were in launching the 9/11 attacks: All US military bases removed from Saudi Arabia, and America embroiled in a war without end against Muslim nations. I guess the message we sent them is "attack us, and get exactly what you want", right?

Afghanistan has had years to give up the Taliban and Bin Ladin if they were serious

The Pentagon and the CIA believe that bin Laden is no longer in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan. Insisting that the Afghani people's "refusal" to give up bin Laden makes the war legitimate is on a par with saying that New Zealand also haven't given him up, so we should invade them.

The 9/11 attacks were a criminal act that required a police response with arrests and trials, not invading two countries (only one of which had even a tangential relationship with the perpetrators) with no clear idea of what we were intending to do there.

Posted by: Darren Garrison | December 6, 2009 11:52 AM

"He will let people know that if someone from geographically near you commits a big crime in the USA, the latter will do something, anything, in an attempt at revenge that will most likely fail just like Vietnam did; but whatever that something is, it will involve killing people. Lots of them."

Sounds like an excellent disincentive to attack to me. If someone told you "if you steal my bike, I may not kill you, but I'll kill your friends, kill your family, and burn your neighborhood down" you'd think twice about stealing their bike, wouldn't you?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2009 11:57 AM

Any discussion on the rationale for the Afghan war must involve a perceptive understanding of realpolitik as well as viable military strategies. However, one rarely makes a valid argument in these matters by invoking the schmaltzy ideals of a second-rate songwriter.

Posted by: raven | December 6, 2009 12:00 PM

Iraq was a mistake and counterproductive. They were opposed to Al Qaeda because Saddam was a secular monster with his own fundie problems. We created more Moslem terrorists by the thousands.

Afghanistan was different. The Taliban were genocidal Khymer Rouge class religious fanatics fully complicit in attacking the USA. We have the right and duty to defend ourselves.

That being said, like Vietnam, sometimes you have to realize you have done what you can and get out. The British and Russians both got bogged down there and eventually left.

We did accomplish something though. Al Qaeda has lost a lot of terrorists and no longer has a worldwide coordinating reach. The Taliban leadership was on top of their society, all the perks that go with being the Big Dog. Now they live in caves on the run and get killed occasionally. They may think about rather they want running water and 3 meals a day or whether they want to sponsor terrorism against a country they can't even find on a map. Theocratic leaderships always go corrupt and soon.

There is no such thing as perfect safety in this world. We may get hit again. Way it goes. And then we smash them back again.

Posted by: C | December 6, 2009 12:05 PM

Well, knock goats, as prior service, I can speak to the military aspect of it, both historical and current. I don't think we should have gone there, but for you idiots that think we can just pull out now and leave then hanging, well, I just don't know what to say. You sit in your house and slack jaw over Vietnam or the Crimea, opinions based on 30 and 180 years of introspection. I personally love how your correcting my spelling of Bin Laden is supposed to equal a valid argument or a rebuttal, too.

Posted by: deep | December 6, 2009 12:09 PM

@knockgoats

Sorry, I thought it was kinda obvious, and I didn't want my post to go on too long.

In Afghanistan we are objectives are to protect the people over killing the enemy. The taliban have just a safehouse in Pakistan rather than the support of any nation. We will hopefully twist Karzai's arm rather to preform a coup. And while there are protests about Obama sending more troops it's no where near the sort of anti-war stance that a portion of the U.S. took during Vietnam.
The biggest thing of all is that our concept of "winning" has changed. Our stake in Vietnam isn't the same as with the terrorists in Afghanistan who have the U.S. as their target. It's not a foreign impersonal war just to prevent the spread of communism.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 6, 2009 12:11 PM

Sounds like an excellent disincentive to attack to me. If someone told you "if you steal my bike, I may not kill you, but I'll kill your friends, kill your family, and burn your neighborhood down" you'd think twice about stealing their bike, wouldn't you?

If I'm stupid enough to believe that there are things worth dying for, let alone turning innocent bystanders into martyrs for, then I'll steal your bike without thinking at all.

We're not talking about rational people here.

bin Laden (with an "e")

All nonsense either way, the kind of Arabic he speaks distinguishes only three vowels (plus long vs short), all of which have a lot of leeway in recognizable and therefore actually occurring pronunciations.

The French always spell him Oussama ben Laden, reflecting a more Algerian pronunciation.

Posted by: Occam's Aftershave | December 6, 2009 12:14 PM

I had previously assumed that, without conscription, the soldiers are exercising their freedom to choose what to do with their lives. I see now the importance of framing the concern in terms of Obama, like Obama's Auto Manufacturer Bailout and Obama's Continued Tolerance of Poverty.

Posted by: guthrie | December 6, 2009 12:16 PM

C #32- you know, if the USA had actually MArshal planned Afghanistan into modernity and not invaded Iraq, things would be a whole lot better now.

But they didn't. So what will you do now?

Posted by: Rey Fox | December 6, 2009 12:19 PM

I think I'm most surprised at the notion that one makes better decisions while being shot at.

Posted by: raven | December 6, 2009 12:21 PM

The conflict in Afghanistan is to a large extent ethnic. The Pashtuns at half the population against Tajdiks and various other minorities. It is all very medieval or biblical. We have our allies there, many of the population.

I don't see why we couldn't partition the country and isolate the Taliban. Containment. It's not like they ever had much of a central government anyway. Afghanistan is more a place than a country.

These are warlords, men with guns. Chances are, they will eventually start fighting among themselves like they did in Somalia. After a long time, it may burn out and we can pick up the pieces. They are at a 19th century lifestyle right now. It can always get worse. They could fall to a 12th century lifestyle and just might decide they don't like it. At any rate, they probably won't attack the USA after they trade their old pickups for donkeys.

Posted by: C | December 6, 2009 12:23 PM

Victory is perfectly obtainable, but intellectual elitists and arm chair war experts have made it plain that the American people apparently cannot stomach a real war. We could win, but nobody wants to sacrifice anything-not politicians, not people here. The only ones sacrificing anything are the ones actually fighting it.

Unfortunately it was not the American people that 'voted' to go there in the first place-and its not the 'American' people voting now to extend it or bring them home. We lack the political will to do what is necessary to win, and we lack the political sacrifice necessary to take a hit and say 'we messed up' and bring all the troops home at the expense of probably losing political power.

I'm saying that a decision needs to be made, and once that decision is made, carried out. It looks like Obama has decided that our presence there, and our promise to the Afghan people is more important, now all he needs to do is revise the ROE.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | December 6, 2009 12:29 PM

As a Canadian, I find the characterisation of this as "Obama's War" highly offensive. As if it just started last week, as if we (including the Dutch & Brits) haven't been trying to hold things together in Southern Afghanistan while Bush's lot were doing their thing in Iraq. The errors here were
a)U.S. indiscriminate support of al-Qaeda (Reagan & Bush senior)
b)probable U.S. support of Taliban (Bush senior & Clinton)
c)invasion of Iraq instead of sticking to Afghan war after 9/11 (Bush)
d) not following up on successes earlier on, when the insurgency was perhaps on the brink of defeat (Bush)
e)"War on Drugs" which is both directly and indirectly responsible for current funding and support of al-Qaeda & Taliban insurgency (all U.S. presidents from Reagan to Obama)

Only the last item makes this in any way "Obama's War", in all other respects it's just "Obama's unfortunate responsibility to clean up".

It would have been irresponsible in the extreme to just abandon the whole enterprise at this point. He has to commit to salvaging something out of the mess and withdrawing at a specified time that isn't several years over the horizon. Both of which he's done. Is it a tragedy that it comes years too late? Yes.

Posted by: Eitch-Bee-Bee | December 6, 2009 12:32 PM

FWIW, I have read a number of discussions about the Russian war in Afghanistan, claiming that the Russians were very close to actually winning it through their scorched earth policy until American-procured StA missiles took away their air support. I still believe it's either this or failure for the NATO coalition. Afghanistan is a guerilla nightmare terrain and I do not think winning a "civilised war" there is possible.

Posted by: PlaydoPlato | December 6, 2009 12:36 PM

PlaydoPlato:

Afghanistan would collapse into an orgy of religion-fueled sectarian violence.

David Marjanović:

What about bringing the UN in and paying for it? (Certainly cheaper than just staying.)

True, but I'm not sure the UN has either the intestinal fortitude or the logistical competence to pull it off. There performance in past conflicts has been spotty.

I feel really bad for those enlistees who were just hoping to pay off their school loans who now find themselves headed into the meat grinder.

Oh, and PZ, I disagree about this being Obama's War. It's a clusterfuck for sure, and it was destined to end badly no matter who sat in the oval office, but to call it Obama's war is to play into the Republican's rebranding strategy.

This monumental fuck up is Bush's War, now and forever.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 12:40 PM

Well, knock goats, as prior service, I can speak to the military aspect of it, both historical and current. - C

Is that why you're so incoherent and devoid of rationality? Take a head shot, did you?

In Afghanistan we are objectives are to protect the people over killing the enemy. - deep

Tell that to the bombed villagers.

The taliban have just a safehouse in Pakistan rather than the support of any nation. - deep

Right. so you can't even bomb the enemy capital to put pressure on them.

We will hopefully twist Karzai's arm rather to preform a coup. - deep

Twist his arm to do what, exactly? Give up power so you can install another puppet?

Victory is perfectly obtainable, but intellectual elitists and arm chair war experts

The cry of the militarist fuckwit through the ages.

The only ones sacrificing anything are the ones actually fighting it. - C

Er, no. But then I suppose the civilians killed in your bombing raids don't really mind being "collateral damage", do they?

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 6, 2009 12:47 PM

And what will he have accomplished?

Not much. I'm glad to see that you didn't drink Hitchens' "war on global fundamentalism" koolaid.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 12:48 PM

the Russians were very close to actually winning it through their scorched earth policy until American-procured StA missiles took away their air support. I still believe it's either this or failure for the NATO coalition. Afghanistan is a guerilla nightmare terrain and I do not think winning a "civilised war" there is possible. - Eitch-Bee-Bee

So, in order for NATO not to fail, it has to carry out a war of extermination. And you think it should do so. Glad that's clear. I'm confirmed in my view that as soon as NATO fails, the better.

Posted by: Glock21 | December 6, 2009 12:53 PM

Another common tactic: playing dumb and pretending one cannot possibly conceive what "winning" might mean in a war with objectives other than the surrender of some nation-state to the other.

Is anyone really confused by the idea that if we accomplished the objectives Obama just reaffirmed (again) that we'd be puzzled at what to consider the situation? Would we all be running around in a stupor wondering if we won or not? We could certainly question if victory was worth it, but that's a different (though obviously important) matter.

I realize that accomplishing objectives requires more explanation than "JAPAN SURRENDERS!" for the average joe, but it's not like it hasn't been explained for years, including two major policy speeches by a president without a "speech impediment" (if you'll pardon the pun). Certainly in a forum of educated skeptics we can avoid reducing ourselves to only seeing the world through Palinesque over-simplifications of situations.

And if you're unaware of what our objectives are in Afghanistan: 1) Shame on you, 2) The transcripts of Obama's March and December comments on the matter are available on-line.

Posted by: deep | December 6, 2009 1:02 PM

It just seems to me that branding this as the new Vietnam and sitting around and singing anti-war songs is the easiest and least constructive thing to do. There are going to be negative repercussions whether we pull out now or stay two years. I just think that out of all the possibilities Obama's decision seems to be at least thought out and is justifiable.

Posted by: mythusmage | December 6, 2009 1:05 PM

Knockgoats, #72

Your prejudice and bias is showing. Now it is true that my monitoring of the news is perfunctory, and true that the news isn't doing much coverage of the situation on the ground, but where are you seeing numerous stories on how Coalition air is blasting random villages on a regular basis. Are we bombing villages, or striking enemy held positions in Afghan villages?

That's why they are the bad guys. The Taliban, as with other Muslim extremist groups, are establishing themselves in civilian installations, hiding themselves among the people. They are using Afghan civilians as hostages, daring us to take action. so Afghan villages get bombed, and Afghan civilians get hurt.

But then don't we have occasions when civilian targets are attacked for no good reason? We do. Such attacks usually followed by the claim that they were legitimate military targets. Until, that is, the weight of evidence shows that bombing the target was a mistake in judgement and should not have happen. So what happens then?

Admissions of error are made, restitution is made, promises to ensure it won't happen again are made. Repeat as necessary.

Things happen in life you would rather didn't happen. Even with the best of intentions things are going to happen, and happen on a number of occasions. You can't avoid mistakes or accidents no matter how hard you true. P = I where P stands for Perfection and I stands for Impossible. That is reality.

You need to see Afghanistan in a certain light, this skews your perception. So you make claims that do not accord with reality. In the long run you become frustrated by your perceptions and make statements that do not accord with facts on the ground. As much as it may distress you, the eye is not irreducibly complex.

Posted by: mythusmage | December 6, 2009 1:11 PM

Dr. P, #81

Because those countries haven't provided facilities, supplies, and refuge for people who engage in attacks on Americans and American facilities. Especially attacks on Americans and American facilities on American soil that result in the destruction of or damage to major American structures and the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Posted by: Glock21 | December 6, 2009 1:12 PM

#79

Again you're analyzing everything and asking questions along the same faulty reasoning of infusing the people themselves of greater or lesser human quality. What superpowers do we have? Why were these people good enough? You sound almost as bad as those who'd base American exceptionalism on superior breeding as opposed to superior ideas.

Why did some fail and some succeed at their objectives? The various factors of technology, strategy, motivations, enthusiasm, etc are too much to go into on a blog comment for all of the above situations, but you can rest assured that it had nothing to do with the humans involved being superior or inferior in their traits (which I'd hope anyone posting on a blog dedicated to evolutionary theory would realize is pure bunk given humanity's historic genetic bottleneck that led to our modern lack of significant variation in such matters).

Long story short: the specific reasons are far more varied than mere stereotypes can explain.

Posted by: Eitch-Bee-Bee | December 6, 2009 1:16 PM

#76 (Knockgoats)

Please, do not put your words in my mouth. I have merely described what I think are the only two available options for the future of the war in Afghanistan - either failure and withdrawal followed by the return of the Taliban to power or total war which may bring success (if you define success by a total subjugation of the country). I have not said the latter is what should be done. Actually, the sooner we withdraw our forces, the better for everybody involved.

Posted by: Dr. P | December 6, 2009 1:25 PM

@ 77, and then you turn around with a post with an actual postion, my apologies.Actually I agree in principle,
but I believe that exiting this gacefully once said objectives are met won't be straightforward. You are not likely to completely eradicate Taliban influence in the area but you could minimize it's influence with order and rule of law but I don't think this will be possible with the Karzai regime,it it too weakened by it's own corruption.You can't invest in the required infrastructure with the government robbing the country blind, so our ability to leave the Afghans in safe hands and exit is directly related to stability of one of the most corrupt governments in the world , leaving us in for the long haul unless the government is somehow fundamentally changed.

Posted by: Dr. P | December 6, 2009 1:30 PM

@ 81 , actually that's not true, look at countries like Syria , Yemen, even arguably Pakistan. Again, my point was that this has never been the real reason to invade Afghanistan , no matter what you believe about American principles.

Posted by: raven | December 6, 2009 1:33 PM

Victory is perfectly obtainable, but intellectual elitists and arm chair war experts...

You forgot to add the most important cause. THE MEDIA!!! It is always the librul media's fault.

Guys with pony tails, glasses, and journalism degrees are superhuman warriors who always, always fight on the other side. Especially when we lose.

Posted by: Yahzi | December 6, 2009 1:39 PM

#81
How come these situations exist in many other countries and it's not a call for thier occupation?

Because you liberals won't let us invade everyone who deserves it. :D

More seriously, because we have limited resources. But our inaction in places we should have acted - Darfur, for example - does not justify inaction here.

Also, not every other country needs to be occupied. We can probably clean up Haiti or Honduras without resorting to military invasion; we can repay our meddling in South America without resorting to occupation. Those societies are in different places. They call for different responses.

But I note you have conceded the fact that we are partly responsible for the Afghanistan mess. If you have some better ideas about how we should address that responsibility, we'd love to hear them.

Posted by: Yahzi | December 6, 2009 1:57 PM

Ya'll realize the Afghanis don't want us to leave yet, right? They want jobs, honest government, no Taliban, and no America - in that order.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Poll_Afghans_See_Poverty_Corruption_As_Main_Causes_Of_War/1881102.html

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 2:30 PM

Yahzi@98,

The link you give has no information on whether Afghans want "us" to leave, and the poll it's based on, the report on which can be seen here, does not seem to have asked that or any similar question.

Posted by: Lukas | December 6, 2009 3:29 PM

I think the pertinent point is that Al-Qaeda (and anti-western terrorism groups in general, for that matter) profits more from the war in Afghanistan than pretty much anyone else. They don't require a "safe haven", they need an argument for recruiting more people, and the current US behavior suits them nicely. The last 8 years of war have more done to help Al-Qaeda than doing nothing at all would have.

And if the goal was to turn Afghanistan into a democracy: I'm pretty sure that country does not have an economy big enough to pay for a police force and an army suitable for keeping the place peaceful. The US will never be able to turn this place into a stable, self-governing country on the level of Iraq, or even of Pakistan.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | December 6, 2009 3:52 PM

Ok, I am about to be controvercial here . . .

*Straps on rhetorical bullet proof vest*

The trouble with the current debate about the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan is that it sometimes tends to fall into the mistake of assuming that an immediate exit from Afghanistan would somehow work out as 'zero-sum'. That we can leave this conflict behind with no consequences.

I am not exactly what you would call a war-monger. I believe that most conflict must ultimately be resolved by dialogue, so why not cut out the blood shed and go straight to the negotiating table? However, I am not so naive as to believe that this idealised solution is always practical in reality. Some people just do not want to talk or at least refuse to engage in discussions in good faith on terms that their opposite numbers could conceivably accept.

I do not pretend to possess presience. I am not a military analyst either. I do not know what would happen if we were to leave Afghanistan tommorrow. I can talk in terms of probabilities, however. And there is but a slim likelihood that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters would just say;

'Well, we showed those infidels, didn't we chaps? That's enough of that nonsense, lets go back to peaceably growing Opium poppies and forget that this whole unpleasant affair ever happened.'

I would imagine that if we just upped stakes and left Afghanistan then Karzai's (admittedly irredeemably corrupt and ethnically partizan) government would be lucky to last a year. After it fell it is a good bet that what would replace it would be worse. Most probably no single group would assume unchallenged power immediately. Instead various factions would fight it out and Afghanistan and its people would be dragged back into the mire of the seemingly interminable series of civil conflicts that have plagued the region for centuries on and off. This state of affairs would be temporary. Soon enough the best equipped, funded and most numerous faction would absorb the bulk of Afghanistan and assume de facto power. With its massive supply of foreign fighters, weapons and petro-dollars pouring in from Middle Eastern sponsors it is a near certainty that Al-Qaeda and the Al-Qaeda affilaited arms of the Taliban would prove to be the strongest faction.

In the best case scenario, we would wind up right back at square one. Even if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda did not control all of the country they could readily rebuild their training camps and sundry infrastructure all but unopposed and within a matter of a few years at most we would be looking at more large scale and well organised terrorist 'spectacular' attacks like 9/11 being launched out of Afghanistan.

In the worst case scenario, without the constant strain of engaging Western forces Afghan and Pakistani militant groups will be able to build up a strong enough power base in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan to topple the Pakistani government. It is then a very real possibility that Pakistan's arsenal of roughly 100 nuclear warheads could fall into the hands of terrorists or of a sympathetic militant Islamist government. Even if the weapons were not deployed (which is far from certain when dealing with martydom-obsessed fanatics), the mere threat of their use would turn some of the craziest people on earth into a global power too influential to ignore and too dangerous to remove. Within 10-15 years the world could look very different indeed and I do not think any of use would appreciate the change.

What's the solution then? To borrow an Americanism, 'hell if I know'. This entire situation has been handled incredibly badly from the off and there now seem to be no good options. All I am saying is that we should be very careful of rushing into any action that might further compound our already impressive litany of mistakes. It pains me to say it, but in the cold light of day precipitant disengagement sounds like just the kind of 'quick fix' populist policy that we should avoid. Of course, I might well be wrong about all of this. If we leave it might all work out fine. It is one massive roll of the dice, however, and I have a sinking feeling we might come up snake eyes.

*ducks quickly into bunker to cries of 'incoming!'*

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 4:15 PM

Gregory Greenwood,

The trouble with the current debate about the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan is that it sometimes tends to fall into the mistake of assuming that an immediate exit from Afghanistan would somehow work out as 'zero-sum'.

This presents a pretence of impartiality, but actually prejudges the whole debate, since the warmongers are perpetually giving blood-curdling warnings about how Osama bin Laden will eat the world if western troops leave, so it's quite clear you're on their side. BTW, you don't know what "zero-sum" means: look it up.

After it fell it is a good bet that what would replace it would be worse.

[argument needed]

Instead various factions would fight it out and Afghanistan and its people would be dragged back into the mire of the seemingly interminable series of civil conflicts that have plagued the region for centuries on and off.

So no change there, then.

With its massive supply of foreign fighters, weapons and petro-dollars pouring in from Middle Eastern sponsors

[citation needed]

within a matter of a few years at most we would be looking at more large scale and well organised terrorist 'spectacular' attacks like 9/11 being launched out of Afghanistan.

What makes you think they needed training camps (which in any case, they have in Pakistan) to launch 9-11? What makes you think the invasion of Afghanistan has anything to do with the lack of attacks on US soil since 9-11?

without the constant strain of engaging Western forces Afghan and Pakistani militant groups will be able to build up a strong enough power base in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan to topple the Pakistani government.

Have you noticed the intense hostility towards the USA in Pakistan? Half the country believes the USA is responsible for Islamist terrorism there! Do you think the constant interference by the USA in the region, often in support of Pakistani dictators, could possibly have anything to do with this? There is not the faintest chance the Taliban can take over Pakistan, unless it first takes over the Pakistani army. The US presence in Afghanistan makes this remote contingency if anything more likely, not less.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | December 6, 2009 5:04 PM

Knockgoats @ 106

Um, Yeah. I never was any good at economics. I looked up the definition of zero sum on Wikipedia and;

'In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Zero-sum can be thought of more generally as constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value of money (or utility). Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum, because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero. Zero sum games are also called strictly competitive.'

So I did misuse that term. I meant that leaving Afghanistan would not return us to the same state as if we had never entered. I shall replace it with 'consequence free'.

'This presents a pretence of impartiality, but actually prejudges the whole debate, since the warmongers are perpetually giving blood-curdling warnings about how Osama bin Laden will eat the world if western troops leave, so it's quite clear you're on their side'

I feel that this is a smidge unfair. I am not taking 'sides'. I am not even sure if talking about sides is helpful in this context. I am also not right wing. I am merely expressing my opinion about what might come to pass. My concerns about this are not being presented as certainties. I claim no special knowledge. I do feel that there will be consequences to leaving. These will most likely be bad, at least from a Western and possibly from an Afghan perspective. I do not feel that this is a question of 'you are either a fully paid up member of the stop the war coalition or you support the warmongers'. I am sorry if I am misrepresenting your position.

'What makes you think they needed training camps (which in any case, they have in Pakistan) to launch 9-11? What makes you think the invasion of Afghanistan has anything to do with the lack of attacks on US soil since 9-11?'

I am simply observing that the reduction in training capacity and the seemingly reduced ability of Al Qaeda to plan and execute the largest scale attacks may be related. It is not certain I grant you. It seems possible that if Al Qaeda is expending recruits and resources fighting the Coalition then it will have less resources available to launch high complexity and resource-intensive largescale coordinated attacks. As I have stated before, I am very possibly wrong, but the proposition does not seem wholly unreasonable.

'Have you noticed the intense hostility towards the USA in Pakistan? Half the country believes the USA is responsible for Islamist terrorism there! Do you think the constant interference by the USA in the region, often in support of Pakistani dictators, could possibly have anything to do with this? There is not the faintest chance the Taliban can take over Pakistan, unless it first takes over the Pakistani army. The US presence in Afghanistan makes this remote contingency if anything more likely, not less.'

Yes I had observed the hostility toward Coalition forces in Pakistan and given the West's history in the region, both historically and recently, who can blame them? At least part of this hostility is also being generated by local firebrand clerics who are often associated with militancy. It is not all born solely out of the actions of the West. I do concede your point, however. Conspiracy theories about the actions of the US or India are also widespread but these might well exist whatever the actions of the Coalition.

I am sorry but I cannot agree with your analysis in relation to the difficulty of a militant coup in Pakistan. The Pakistani army is already extensively infiltrated by militants much like the Afghan security forces. The Pakistani military were involved, under Musharraf, in creating many militant groups (who later went on to form the Pakistani Taliban) as weapons to use against India in the various conflicts over Kashmir [hmm, creating extremists as an expediency in warfare that later turn on you. I know this reminds me of someone else, but who?;)]. These connections still exist, which might go some way to explaining the lacklustre performance of the Pakistani military in relation to some of the militant groups. The loyalty of the various arms of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies is far from certain. I believe that this risk is real, but I am no specialist.

The presence of coalition troops forces the regional militant groups into a war on two fronts, one of which is against a powerful and tchnologically sophisticated foe. If this dynamic were to change and the militant groups (who incidentally operate on both sides of the border, the distinction between Pakistani and Afghan militant groups is fuzzy at best) could concentrate their full forces, and whatever resources they could muster, against Pakistan alone. I would have thought that this would surely worsen the situation for the Pakistani authorities. On the other hand, you may be right. The presence of Coalition troops may act as a recruiting sergeant for extremism, and with their withdrawal the impetus behind the militant movements may collapse. I am in no position to say which scenario would play out in practice. Maybe elements of both, maybe neither.

All I am advocating is caution. We have made enough mistakes in this war. We should think carefully before we risk making another. It is possible that, after careful consideration of all the intelligence and a careful weighing of all the variables, the best option is proven to be immediate withdrawal. If so, then I say we should bring the forces home. We should not, however, simply takle such action because it is popular or politically expedient. What is wrong with taking time to get the decision right? Such time will, lamentably, cost lives. Rushing the decision could well cost many more, at least in my opinion.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | December 6, 2009 5:12 PM

ahh, missed one;

'After it fell it is a good bet that what would replace it would be worse.

[argument needed]'

Once again, I am not saying that this is certain, but the Karzai government, for all its corruption and ethnic politiking and repulsively oppressive attituide toward women, is simply the best compramise that could be mustered at short notice. The warlords, including members of the former Northern Alliance, on their own would hardly make for a more enlightened government. A resurgent Taliban would almost certainly be every bit as brutal as the Taliban regime of pre-2001. The most likely scenario post-pullout of out and out civil war would be a lot like it is now but without even the limited moderating influence of a central authority (however corrupt) in Kabul and the presence of Western reconstruction attempts (however inadequate and under funded). The situation right now is awful, but lets not pretend it couldn't get any worse. If I have learnt one thing, it is that things can always get worse. Trouble is, I have no idea as to how to make them better. This is a difficulty that the world's leaders seem to share.

Posted by: mythusmage | December 6, 2009 5:50 PM

Knockgoats, #97

Frightfully unsporting of them, I agree - they really should come out in the open, wearing bright red uniforms. But entirely standard guerilla tactics and strategy, designed in large part precisely to turn the population against the foreign invader.

So then when we strike at them we become the villains. How dare we demand they stop placing people in danger so they can make America look bad.

And my what a facetious argument. The Taliban place their people in civilian locations because they know we'll use extraordinary restraint when dealing with such. The insurgents are not out to assert their rights, the insurgents are out to deny others their rights. The Taliban, in case you've forgotten, are radical idealists. They are Afghanistan's creationists and moral absolutists, and it is their goal to make the people of Afghanistan live as they, the Taliban, think the people of Afghanistan should live.

You have let your feelings warp your thinking, and that makes you no better than an AGW denier. You seek out anything that will bolster your animosity towards the United States and her allies, ignoring any data that contradicts your beliefs. No evidence will satisfy you, for you wish to know nothing that shows you are wrong on this matter. You are quick to anger, quick to hate, and reluctant to give due consideration to opposing points of view.

Was it wrong to give you the Molly? No, that you earned. But you do show serious and damaging flaws that have every potential of harming you in the long run. For critical thinking is not just for things you agree with, even more critical thinking is for things you disagree with. It's about time you started applying critical thinking to Afghanistan.

Posted by: mythusmage | December 6, 2009 6:02 PM

Tis Himself, #101

Not conquer, change. Peoples do change. The Assyrians did after the Medes and Neo-Babylonians smashed them way long ago. More recently the Germans changed because of post Victory in Europe occupation policies and the implementation of her current form of government.

But, we're not being serious about change. Instead we want a cheap, easy victory, being unwilling to take the time we'll need to affect change. We want a stable Afghanistan we have to get serious about the effort.

I will not accept the proposition that only Americans deserve freedom and rights. I will not accept the proposition that just because a people have lived under oppression for centuries, nobody has the right to offer them anything better. I will most especially not accept the proposition that we have no right to make life better, even in the face of violent opposition.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the Taliban are would be tyrants and despots. So long as they pose a threat Afghanistan will never be stable but always the site of violence and misery. We may not be able to provide a solution to Afghanistan's problems, but dammit, at least let us try.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 6, 2009 6:12 PM

mythusmage,
Look, I'm not arguing the moral rights and wrongs, I'm saying the war is lost. You can't hear that because you believe Amurika can do anything, and you're so certain of that you think everyone else believes it too, so I must be saying the war is morally wrong. Continuing it is, because it's a pointless waste of life and resources, but that's secondary to the fact that it can't be won, and that means that in the long run, it will be lost.

It's about time you started applying critical thinking to Afghanistan.

I am; it's you who are failing to look at the realities of the place, or at what I'm actually saying. Look at your #82 again - it is simply irrelevant to my argument.

Posted by: guthrie | December 6, 2009 6:26 PM

Mythusmage #114 - but the current alternative to the Taliban is regressive, repressive, drug fuelled warlords. Not much better really. So how exactly were you going to change everything for the better?

Glenn - The Taliban are strengthened by your presence there. They were in no danger of invading Pakistan and seizing a nuke in the first place, but standing up to the USA makes them more attractive to the sort of people who might just think that big.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2009 6:52 PM

Glenn,

What we do not want the Taliban getting a hold of: Nuclear weapons.

And how on earth is the Taliban supposed to get hold of Pakistani nukes ?

By seizing power in Pakistan ? Then you know nothing of Pakistan.
By invading Pakistan and defeating the Pakistani army ? You gotta be joking.

More paranoia to justify useless wars. Known pattern.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2009 7:13 PM

It's gonna take a loooong time for America to figure out the obvious: you can't fight terrorism with soldiers.

The powers that be know that. But how do they justify spending more than $700 billion a year on the military and their toys if they let Americans know that most of it is completely inadequate ?

Posted by: Alex | December 6, 2009 7:34 PM

Why are we calling this "Obama's war"? He inherited it, and now he has to continue it. That's just the reality.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 6, 2009 7:58 PM

Why are we calling this "Obama's war"? He inherited it, and now he says he has to continue it. That's just the reality.

There, corrected it for you...

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | December 6, 2009 8:31 PM

In the interests of accuracy, that should be the USSR for the 1983 example and the modern Russian State for the 1995 one.

Posted by: SteveL | December 6, 2009 10:26 PM

Time has an article on Obama's strategy, or what their pundit thinks is Obama's strategy:

Obama shrinks the war on terrorism

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 7, 2009 1:00 AM

oh yeah; nuke pakistan. fucking brilliant idea.

Posted by: wiley | December 7, 2009 1:32 AM

@Jadehawk. Yes, it would be major departure from contemporary 'conventional' tactics, but consider:

1. It would be cheaper than paying them to pretend to be our friends, as we do now.
2. USA nuked Japan, ending that phase of WW2, and now they're our friends.
3. Sends a clear message that we don't take kindly to a nation that harbours our no.1 enemy.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 7, 2009 1:35 AM

wiley, you're insane and historically illiterate. but go ahead, nuke pakistan, and see how long it takes until the rest of the nuke-owning countries rain that shit on the USA. you DO remember the cold war, right?

Posted by: wiley | December 7, 2009 1:55 AM

@Wowbagger
Do you consider USA to be a Christian nation? I ask, because I have it on 'good authority' that it is not, and it seems that only jihadists who call our soldiers "Crusaders", think otherwise. Does it really matter that if we nuke 'em they will have negative view of 'Christians'?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 7, 2009 1:59 AM

The SuperGenius is merely trolling, as always.

Posted by: wiley | December 7, 2009 2:23 AM

Fellers, please....all I said was it *might* work. OK, I withdraw the nuke card. What of the the remainder of my post?

Posted by: Mr T | December 7, 2009 2:37 AM

wiley: The remainder of your post?

I'd have invaded Saudi Arabia, flattened the mosques in Mecca & Medina, nicked the oil, and not call it 'War On Terror' but a 'Crusade Against Islam'. Then again, if I was running the World, 9/11 would not have happened because there would never have been any Moslems in the USA to carry out the operation. Moslems belong in Islamic lands; whatever possible use could there be for Moslem countries other than keeping Moslems in?

I could go on, but I'll sum it up like this: FUCK OFF!

Posted by: wiley | December 7, 2009 2:56 AM

@MrT

You are stupid, bigoted, jingoistic, sadistic, batshit insane, and otherwise devoid of any sense of ethics.

Posted by: Mr T | December 7, 2009 3:12 AM

I am opposed to every religious belief system, which includes yours.

That does not mean I want to kill anyone or do anything else that I think is unethical.

You have not gotten me. You have only demonstrated again how insane and evil you are.

You have given me (and I hope everyone else) no reason to continue a conversation with you.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 7, 2009 3:37 AM

wiley, you have no reading comprehension. your confirmation bias must have cut off the oxygen supply to your brain.

Posted by: Ray McIntyre | December 7, 2009 5:05 AM

1. Destroy the opium crops.
2. Withdraw all military and non-military personnel.
3. Nuke Kabul, Kandahar, Quetta, Islamisbad & Tehran, and all known nuke facilities in Pakistan & Iran.
4. Quit the UN and chuck those unelected freeloaders off of US soil.
But then, if I was W, I would not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq in the 1st instance; I'd have invaded Saudi Arabia, flattened the mosques in Mecca & Medina, nicked the oil, and not call it 'War On Terror' but a 'Crusade Against Islam'.
Then again, if I was running the World, 9/11 would not have happened because there would never have been any Moslems in the USA to carry out the operation. Moslems belong in Islamic lands; whatever possible use could there be for Moslem countries other than keeping Moslems in?

I have read some half-witted things in my time but this piece of asshattery takes the proverbial biscuit.

1: The opium crops bring in the great majority of the little money these people have so before destroying them it might be a really good idea to find something to replace them with. Of course, you'll also have to have your troops there in perpetuity because as soon as you leave back will come the warlords and the opium.

2: Nuking the Islamic world is about as sensible as deliberately sticking your damn fool finger in a hornet's nest and wacking the nest with a stick. There are between 1.2 and 1.5 BILLION Muslims on the planet, abut 30 times the population of the US and then, should you miss, you'll get the Chinese and Indians in on the act. Let the rest of us know how that works out for you, eh?

3: The only reason the UN is on US soil is because that is where the US President of the time wanted it to be, ie, they are there because you invited 'em. The UN does you no harm other than to your precious American ego.

Invading the Holy sites in Saudi Arabia would have been the best, first step to a war you could not possibly have won. For the reasons see (2) above.

As for Muslims belonging solely in Muslim lands, I assume you'll also want to extradite all Christians to Israel along with an Jews. The principle, you see, is the same, both Christianity and Judaism were born in that area of the world.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 7, 2009 5:50 AM

Gregory Greenwood,
Nuclear war nearly came about twice in in 1983 and once in 1995 by accident. Soviet/Russian fanaticism had nothing to do with it, but in 1983 Reagan's anti-communist fanaticism had persuaded the senile Soviet leadership that a US first strike was possible. Look these incidents up, then tell me Afghanistan is more dangerous. So far as the threat of all-out nuclear war is concerned - and no other military threat is remotely comparable - the world is probably safer now than at any time since 1949.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 7, 2009 6:06 AM

The bell will soon toll for thee, Wiley. You won't be missed.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | December 7, 2009 6:41 AM

Hmm, I seem to be saying 'hardly' too much. Must find new word . . .

Posted by: Sean O'Doherty | December 7, 2009 10:41 AM

Ahmed Wali Karzai will still be one of the biggest drug dealers in the 'stan.

Posted by: daniel m | December 7, 2009 11:38 AM

obama's war?

shame on you!

the shrubbery architected this whole fiasco with his shooting-friends-in-the-face buddy and that horde of warmongering oil-grabbers who were never elected (or at least elected under false pretenses whilst banging the war-drums and shouting jingo).

don't blame obama for starting it - continuing it, perhaps, but it's more than arguable he's hoping for a slightly worse outcome in the long-run than dropping it and running away.

Posted by: Multicellular | December 7, 2009 11:58 AM

Doh! That final paragraph should start out: "So is the evil of staying worse than the evil of leaving? Unfortunately NO." That's what I get for re-editing and not checking my context.

Posted by: Steven Mading | December 7, 2009 5:10 PM

The only possible path to victory is a change in attitude of the Afghan people themselves. The Taliban and Al Queda would be as toothless and ridicule-worthy as Fred Phelp's insane family is in the US if not for the fact that a large number of Afghans invite them in and respect them and their Sharia-dominated visions of "utopia".

More troops extends the occupation, but occupation is merely a means of delaying the insurgency long enough to work on the first problem.

My only complaint with Obama in Afghanistan is that we're ignoring the first problem of the people's attitudes while extending the occupation. I'd have no problem with extending the occupation if that delay tactic WAS ALSO accompanied by a more realistic effort on the first, primary, and only problem of the attitudes of the people. Pretending the Afghans don't like the Taliban and therefore would not simply re-grow their ranks again when we leave is naive.

If we could magically send a bolt of death that killed only Bin Laden and all the top leaders of Al-Queda, and all the top leaders of the Taliban, it would make NO DIFFERENCE at all. Others would simply rise up and fill their positions, like when you fire the CEO of a company, the company doesn't go away.

The real problem is that the extremist fundies get recruits. And they get those recruits because the population isn't an enslaved people forcibly kept down by the Taliban that they don't like and wish would go away, as we keep portraying them (well, that might be an accurate portrayal of the women). The Taliban is drawn FROM the population. It's a population subjugating themSELVES. And why do they get such strong support? The elephant in the room is religion.

As long as the leaders keep pretending that religion has nothing to do with this, that act of self-deception will prevent success because it keeps them from working on the problem.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | December 7, 2009 6:26 PM

Marc Albian @ 167;

Despite being a Brit, to my shame I am not sure of the specifics. As far as I can tell, the British attempt to subjugate Afghanistan was part of a 19th Century colonial expedition. The usual nauseating justifications were trotted out. It was being done in pursuit of 'civilising' the 'savages' by bringing them the dubious boon of Christianity and the arrogant asertion that 'God is an Englishman!'

To the best of my knowledge, the reality of the situation was that this was a military adventure looking to take whatever Afghanistan had for the oft-touted glory of the Empire and at the same time secure access to the Kashmiri passes that, in an era before mass air transport (or in fact, any air transport), were vital trade artreries and had strategic significance in the so called 'Great Game'. The Brits got a hell of a lot more than they bargained for when the local tribes not only failed to appreciate the honour inherent in being ground under the heel of the Empire, but also had the temerity to fight back and the bad sportsmanship to be rather good at it.

All in all, another less than eddifying chapter in the colonial history of Blighty. I couldn't hazard a guess as to exact dates, and my account is doubtless full of holes and probably wrong in several particulars, not to mention coloured by my outlook on colonialism, so I suppose it would be best to look these events up.

Ah, the glory of the inter-tubes and the wonder of the all-knowing Wikipedia.

Posted by: wiley | December 8, 2009 2:32 AM

#165
well, 'goats, what do you think; how long will it be before some kinda Creationist Troll turns up on this thread?

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 8, 2009 7:33 AM

Martin Menninger,

I'm not convinced by your analysis. While Pashtunwali is a powerful force, so is self-interest: as I understand it, the Taliban did offer to turn bin Laden over, but imposed unacceptable conditions. By the time US ground forces landed, they evidently did know bin Laden's whereabouts - and according to the recent report, could have captured him at Tora Bora - so why not lull him into a false sense of security by appearing to be unwilling to intervene while recruiting local help to pinpoint him? Answer: politically, swift revenge was required. As for British mistakes in 1842, any puppet who is not an idiot is going to be unreliable, because he'll be looking to the time when the invaders leave. To the Bush regime, of course, Afghanistan was an unwelcome distraction to the invasion of Iraq they had been planning ssince the '90s.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 8, 2009 8:00 AM

Gregory Greenwood,

I agree that the prospect of Taliban-controlled nukes is not to be taken lightly. However, I do not see this as more than a very faint possibility, nor is the presence of US troops likely to reduce it - rather the reverse. The Pakistan army is, basically, a large business with its own security force: it owns about 40% of the economy. While it contains a minority of fundamentalist nutters, the majority of the officer corps are dedicated to protecting their assets.

Posted by: Martin | December 8, 2009 12:37 PM

Knockgoats,
Though I understand your point and I actually like it, I think we’ll continue to disagree. I don’t think that we could have had local help in the regions that the Taliban controlled. They meted out severe punishments for minor offenses and were killing foreign journalists on suspicion of being spies – do you think anybody was really enthused about helping us? Not even the $25M reward seems to have had any effect. Only in the regions where the Northern Alliance held sway did we get cooperation – and they were sworn enemies of the Taliban already. Also, an offer to turn over Bin Laden with unacceptable conditions attached isn’t really a viable offer. In my opinion they were playing for time and trying to create wiggle room.

negentropyeater,
Please note that I entitled the post ‘Part I’. I agree with you and will go one farther: the practice of war and maintenance of militaries is perhaps the biggest waste of human talents and energy. War does not add to the sum of human accomplishment; it has been a drag on prosperity and well-being in the aggregate. However, until human nature changes, it is an unfortunate necessity to defend oneself and one’s interests. So – how much capability do we require? Do we withdraw to our shores or do we defend sea-lanes on the other side of the world? Do we defend weaker states with whom we share interests, or do we let certain nations bully their neighborhoods? I’ve seen it written that the British acquired their empire in a fit of absent-mindedness – we seem to have fallen into the role of world-cop by default. This has not been without benefit to us (and others). Global stability is a luxury we’ve gotten used to. Do we pay more than our fair share? Probably – but we also receive more than our “fair share” of global resources. So – how should we establish an appropriate level of spending? We try to define our national interest and then plan our military capabilities around it. This is a formal process starting with the National Security Strategy – an actual document, which is supported by the National Military Strategy. Unfortunately, the capabilities we desire are very expensive. Not just the toys themselves, but the operating costs, too. The state of readiness we maintain depends on a great deal of training, such as flying hours for our pilots, and steaming hours for our ship captains. The global reach and fast-reaction capability we enjoy is enabled by an incredibly complex logistics and supply chain. In the military the ratio of combat to support forces is known as the ‘tooth-to-tail’ ratio (please remember this concept for a later post), and quite often it is less than 1:1. Our conventional capabilities of projecting power also enable us to react quickly to humanitarian crises, when we have the will to do so.
SecDef Gates thinks that we’ve placed too much emphasis on the military part of the NSS and need to bolster our non-military capabilities – that’s a start, but to spend less it’s not enough. So which capabilities do we wish to give up? Our elected leadership is supposed to decide that. Too bad Eisenhower’s warning was far from hollow – we don’t necessarily do the smartest things when it comes to procuring weapon systems. BTW, when I’m not deployed, my current duty is as a cost analyst for new systems – so I’ve seen how this process works, too. Most people would be very surprised by how much talent (not counting myself here) goes into just trying to figure out how much a new system should cost. The Air Force actually sent me to graduate school for a degree in what comes down to applied statistical modeling to be able to do the job better. One last thing: though we spend about half of the world’s discernible defense budget, it doesn’t translate very well (see The Economist’s Big Mac index). For example, the Chinese can support a heck of a lot more soldiers for a given amount of money than we can.

Sorry for the jumbled writing – this was not part of my planned comment. And I just realized I didn’t really answer the question: are we aggravating the possibility of existential threats? Yes – we are. But if we weren’t the big dog on the block whom rising powers wish to challenge, those rising powers would simply be the bullies in their regions. Are we willing to live with that? At this point, I don’t think so. Could we keep them in check at a lower level of expenditure? Tough to say – we have gotten used to planning for future threats since the development and employment cycle of weapon systems is so long, and being ready for multiple eventualities costs. Sooner or later we will have to get used to the idea of not being the only superpower, and if we start de-escalating now, perhaps we can appear less threatening to others, encouraging them to invest less heavily in arming up. And though I use a modeling tool called Crystal Ball (unfortunate name), none of us know what the intentions of our challengers are, or if they would respond to such de-escalation.

PZ, I hope you’ll forgive my long comments. I am going somewhere with this, and it is pertinent to the topic. More importantly, thank you for performing this service. It is a pleasure to read a blog where the commenters usually reason well, and where the occasional IDiot provides comic relief.