Karzai threatens to throw his lot in with Russia

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sounds like you can't wait for it to come.

History tells us it probably will. I think we should be ready for that when it becomes a reality. The Afghan tribes don't really want us or need us, save for the usefulness of NATO guns against their political rivals. They don't really need anyone, they're perfectly happy to fight amongst themselves and to rule themselves. Britain couldn't change that, Persia couldn't change that, other Afghans can't change that, to think that the Americans are something special in this situation is naive.

 

[Shekwan]

History tells us it probably will. I think we should be ready for that when it becomes a reality. The Afghan tribes don't really want us or need us, save for the usefulness of NATO guns against their political rivals. They don't really need anyone, they're perfectly happy to fight amongst themselves and to rule themselves. Britain couldn't change that, Persia couldn't change that, other Afghans can't change that, to think that the Americans are something special in this situation is naive.

Yeah.

Glorious communist intervention couldn't even change either.

 

[red_elk]

In Belarus, Venezuela, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan ( ), Kazakhstan ( ) and much of Central Asia, the "pro-Russian" attitude is usually limited to the members of the ruling elite.

Don't know about Venezuela, for all others it's wrong.
Especially for Cuba, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Belarus and Eastern Ukraine. And some (former) Georgian regions.

 

[Azale]

History tells us it probably will. I think we should be ready for that when it becomes a reality. The Afghan tribes don't really want us or need us, save for the usefulness of NATO guns against their political rivals. They don't really need anyone, they're perfectly happy to fight amongst themselves and to rule themselves. Britain couldn't change that, Persia couldn't change that, other Afghans can't change that, to think that the Americans are something special in this situation is naive.

Looking at the state of Afghanistan since the dawn of time...yea, they kinda do. It's our fault for having side adventures and neglecting the most failed region this side of Somalia. If your going to go into Afghanistan, you have to go all in. Call me naive for hoping something can be done and not subscribing to historical boogeymen.

 

[Gooblah]

He's the leader of a sovereign nation, and as has the right to dictate foreign policy. He has every right to threaten to do one thing or another, and is in a superb position to do so.

Is the US really going to leave Afghanistan? No. It's trapped between a rock and a hard place. If it leaves and takes Nato with it, Afghanistan either crumbles or hates them, and becomes a breeding ground for terrorists (again). If it stays even though Karzai requests it, we become an invasion force (again) and our status in the world (especially Pres. Obama's) declines sharply due to 'American hypocrisy'. And I would bet that the president orders troops to stay instead of letting Afghanistan become a Taliban hotspot.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yeah.

Glorious communist intervention couldn't even change either.

I momentarily forgot about them. I started thinking or rebellions against invasions, and all but that Russian one came from the South and West.

Looking at the state of Afghanistan since the dawn of time...yea, they kinda do.

But they don't think so, and its their opinion that matters, not ours.

It's our fault for having side adventures and neglecting the most failed region this side of Somalia. If your going to go into Afghanistan, you have to go all in. Call me naive for hoping something can be done and not subscribing to historical boogeymen.

Hope for it, but do not count on it.

Historical boogeymen? If learning from history is not the purpose for its study, then what the hell is?

 

[Mad Man]

I don't see US troops leaving that dump any time soon.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I don't see US troops leaving that dump any time soon.

Certainly not, since the President has called for twice as many troops there as the previous Administration.

 

[Azale]

But they don't think so, and its their opinion that matters, not ours.

Perhaps, but that's not what you said. You said they didn't need our help, which is clearly not the case. They need all of the help they can get.

Hope for it, but do not count on it.

You be a Negative Nancy, I'll be a Positive Polly

Historical boogeymen? If learning from history is not the purpose for its study, then what the hell is?

What's the lesson? Afghanistan is screwed for all time so don't bother?

 

[GoodGame]

What's the lesson? Afghanistan is screwed for all time so don't bother?

Probably more that ethnic divisions fueled by external sources will prevent long-term unity. Probably better to accept new, balkanized national identities if it's not possible to secure the old borders.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Perhaps, but that's not what you said. You said they didn't need our help,

They're quite content to do their own thing. They don't need a government or any central authority, much less a peace with the other tribes. I don't think they need our help, mostly because they don't want it. They're free, or they should be anyway, to do things their own way in their own country. They always have, because the only time Afghans ever unite is to get rid of a foreign power that's keeping them from doing things their own way, namely, in a disunited way.

which is clearly not the case.

How so?

They need all of the help they can get.

That may be the case, but its not our place to do so.

You be a Negative Nancy, I'll be a Positive Polly

I'm not saying I hope we fail, I'm saying I expect us to. Obviously I want us to do what we went there to do, and to win.

What's the lesson? Afghanistan is screwed for all time so don't bother?

Yep. We can't make them change if they don't want to.

 

[Mad Man]

What's the lesson? Afghanistan is screwed for all time so don't bother?

That sounds about right.

 

[Azale]

They're quite content to do their own thing. They don't need a government or any central authority, much less a peace with the other tribes. I don't think they need our help, mostly because they don't want it. They're free, or they should be anyway, to do things their own way in their own country. They always have, because the only time Afghans ever unite is to get rid of a foreign power that's keeping them from doing things their own way, namely, in a disunited way.

I would think the Afghan people would want more, I doubt they are really as happy as you make it seem they are just "doing their own thing". That "thing" being no central government, security, functional economy, and a life expectancy hovering around 40 even before the Soviet and American invasions. Besides, at this stage abandoning Afghanistan is abandoning them to the Taliban.

How so?

I have established that I think someone should stabilize the situation. Who else is better prepared to do this than the USA/NATO?

That may be the case, but its not our place to do so.

Considering the security concerns for the West and the US (not to mention Pakistan and India) that emanate from the region, I think it is our place to do so. Especially if, as you said, the Afghan thing is to be decentralized and not place any firm control of their own on the situation.

I'm not saying I hope we fail, I'm saying I expect us to. Obviously I want us to do what we went there to do, and to win.

Oh I knew this all along, I was just giving you a hard time

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I would think the Afghan people would want more, I doubt they are really as happy as you make it seem they are just "doing their own thing". That "thing" being no central government, security, functional economy, and a life expectancy hovering around 40 even before the Soviet and American invasions. Besides, at this stage abandoning Afghanistan is abandoning them to the Taliban.

Yep. Sucks doesn't it? The key I think is for us to play the tribes against each other, each vying for our patronage. The problem for the US outside of Afghanistan is the Taliban, not the tribesmen fighting. We don't need to make Afghanistan a modern nation, we just need to keep the Taliban from strengthening.

I have established that I think someone should stabilize the situation. Who else is better prepared to do this than the USA/NATO?

Permanent stabilization of such a wild area is next to impossible.

Considering the security concerns for the West and the US (not to mention Pakistan and India) that emanate from the region, I think it is our place to do so. Especially if, as you said, the Afghan thing is to be decentralized and not place any firm control of their own on the situation.

That's why the northern half of Pakistan, which is culturally, linguistically, and ethnically tied to Afghanistan (the only reason that border exists is that the British wanted a border easier to defend the Raj from; they cut a huge Pashtun tribe in half with that border, and that's where a lot of this cross-border support for the Taliban comes from; people don't forget things), should be a part of Afghanistan. The advantage to this, apart from simply being just, is that all the bad eggs are now in one basket, and apart from fighting the Taliban, the rest of the world can simply forget about the hill peoples, which is mostly what they want from us anyway.

 

[illram]

Wasn't the last somewhat functional Afghan government run under a monarchy? Is anyone around from that era who Afghans as a whole may respond to favorably?

 

[Dachs]

History has shown that anybody in Afghanistan usually goes wrong.

To everybody who says this and similar about Afghanistan: ahem.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

To everybody who says this and similar about Afghanistan: ahem.

Pacification of Afghanistan has only been impossible since the vast majority of sedentary population, culture, and economic structure was erased by the Mongols. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom was largely built around those cities and the large irrigation networks that allowed them to exist. When the cities were erased, because they were the ones who resisted the Mongols, all that was left was the hill tribes, who were able to retreat into the mountains and let the Mongols pass, something they've done to every invader since, since most of them have simply passed through the country on the way to other, more populated parts of the world.

 

[Dachs]

Pacification of Afghanistan has only been impossible since the vast majority of sedentary population, culture, and economic structure was erased by the Mongols. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom was largely built around those cities and the large irrigation networks that allowed them to exist. When the cities were erased, because they were the ones who resisted the Mongols, all that was left was the hill tribes, who were able to retreat into the mountains and let the Mongols pass, something they've done to every invader since, since most of them have simply passed through the country on the way to other, more populated parts of the world.

Yes, I realize that the example of Alexandros, the Euthydemoi, and the Eukratidai is largely equatist and irrelevant given the actions of the Mongols and others. Just was poking fun. Though arguably the Durrani state can be said to be relatively long-lasting and with a semblance of stability, whose collapse I understand to have been largely a result of inept rulers in the later part of Ahmad Shah's line, and not due to an inherent resistance to state formation on the part of the tribes...but they were, in the end, somewhat transitory and fell apart anyway, so perhaps they wouldn't be the best example.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes the Durrani were the first Afghan-originating empire (I wouldn't really count the Ghaznavids, since it originated from Turkic mamelukes who were by no means Afghan, apart from residing in that geographic area at the time). But the Durrani were the result of a very unique time in Afghan history, where both the empires on every side were in very sharp decline, and one tribe effectively had enough money to buy the other tribes' loyalty, then secure it with conquest booty from the land of those collapsing empires. Remember that within the first few years of selecting Ahmad Shah, they not only united Afghanistan, but seized the major cities of Amritsar (twice), Lahore, Nishapur, and Mashhad. Once the tide of Durrani conquest peaked, the Ghilzai, Barukzai, and the rest were more than happy to start plotting against the Abdali line again. That the king's line managed to stay in power until the communist revolt in 1973 is both a miracle and the product of foreign intervention; the Ghilzai actually succeeded in driving Dost Mohommad out of the country, but the British put him back, and the only reason he wasn't removed again when the British were driven out was that the power vacuum would have been too much of a problem for any of the tribal leaders to deal with that it was better to just ignore him and pretend that he mattered.

 

[Zarn]

right, so what makes one ethnically ukranian as opposed to mixed Russia/ukranian? How come you decide what opinion true ukranians hold on Russia? BS. I'm Irish, does that mean I get to decide what true Irish people think of , say France?

Are you seriously trying to argue with me over ethnicity? Ethnicity is a mixture of factors, and not every factor always applies.