To Which Taliban Are You Referring?

[Formaldehyde]

The OP undercounts the number of Talibans.

25,000 is the official figure bandied about these days.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWM24PqWpJg-935bFXbYANhGJ_lQD9BJLDVO0

The internal figure used for planning purposes is 20,000 fighters, with several more thousand auxiliaries — mainly members of tribal militias, clans, and semi-criminal gangs," said a senior officer based at NATO headquarters in Brussels. He asked not to be identified under standing regulations.

Another senior official — a representative of a non-NATO nation based at alliance headquarters — gave a similar number.

This official added that enemy numbers varied widely over time, depending on the season and other factors. "When the poppy is good, they stay home. When the poppy is bad, they take up guns," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Recent U.S. government estimates have also put the number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan at about 25,000.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hundreds of incidents of what in the 21st century? Surely you mean past millenia;

Incidents that underline a very basic fact: Great powers don't give a damn about the well-being of less developed nations. If it is convenient, they may support them, but always and only to the extend it remains beneficial for both sides. If to harm them seems more beneficial (and the general public lacks awareness/insight which it often does) that's what's get done.
If you incorporate all the operations of Western intelligence services this measurement is quite right I think.

I'm talking about neo-policy.

Saying?

 

[Ecofarm]

Recent U.S. government estimates have also put the number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan at about 25,000.

It should not be difficult to keep 25k from ruling a country of millions. There might always be pockets but we won and we're keeping it. The soviets didn't install a government - we have left that analogy.

 

[MobBoss]

Ignorance is Strength, remember

I thought that was ignorance is bliss. Not strength.

 

[Ecofarm]

oh, n/m. I'm tired and anything seems funny.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It should not be difficult to keep 25k from ruling a country of millions. There might always be pockets but we won and we're keeping it. The soviets didn't install a government - we have left that analogy.

Not for a strong an stable central power as the US can provide. If Afghanistan will be able to as well is another question.

 

[Ecofarm]

A new question. Before we just wanted things in shambles, for the most part. Even in s/c america, the goal was shambles over communism, it's not like that anymore. Stop with the cold war mentality; quit ascribing 20th century policy/goals/results to 21st century motives.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A new question. Before we just wanted things in shambles, for the most part. Even in s/c america, the goal was shambles over communism, it's not like that anymore. Stop with the cold war mentality.

I disagree. Chaos is unpredictable and gives the West nothing to gain. And terrorists can hide in shambles very well.
Some form of new stable system must have been on the strategists mind every since or they should get fired immediately.

 

[Ecofarm]

It is common knowledge that US policy in the Iran-Iraq conflict was destabilization through support of the weaker party. As that changed, our support changed. We couldn't really care who won, whether shite or sunni or monarchy or theocracy... there was no winning in mind for democracy. We just wanted to make sure that they didn't have a clear victor and a rise to significant power. We we're not "vs" anything, except the status quo... so we ******** its ascention.

I would say that we pretty much did the same thing in the americas and asia, except there we chose chaos over communism.

At any rate, a destabilization policy changed to one of nation building and stabilization through democracy ~ 21st century. If you cannot see that history clearly or understand it, then I can understand ascribing sinister motives to modern day US interventionism.

If the motives are not the same, then we are discussing different policy and can expect different results.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

the goal was shambles over communism, it's not like that anymore. Stop with the cold war mentality; quit ascribing 20th century policy/goals/results to 21st century motives.

The aim is the same: Increasing power and ensuring the strength of the West (and of course especially its leading nation) for the future.
That the cold war is over means merely that there is one issue less to worry about.

The Iranian democracy had not been destroyed 1953 because their prime minister was an "evil communist" but because he threatened Western wealth and influence with is plans. The same goes for other countries accused of communism like Haiti and so forth. It's not about freedom or democracy for god sake. It is about power.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is common knowledge that US policy in the Iran-Iraq conflict was destabilization through support of the weaker party. As that changed, our support changed. We couldn't really care who won, whether shite or sunni or monarchy or theocracy... there was no winning in mind for democracy. We just wanted to make sure that they didn't have a clear victor and a rise to significant power. We we're not "vs" anything, except the status quo... so we ******** its ascention.

I agree with you on the Iran-Iraq matter, but I was talking exclusively about democratic elements in both nations and how they were fought by the US and the UK which mainly took place some time before that war.

I would say that we pretty much did the same thing in the americas and asia, except there we chose chaos over communism.

Well actually my impression is you tended to chose chaos over communism as well dictatorship over socialism.

At any rate, a destabilization policy changed to one of nation building and stabilization through democracy ~ 21st century. If you cannot see that history clearly or understand it, then I can understand ascribing sinister motives to modern day US interventionism.

I am sorry but to me it would not make sense like that. Democracy beyond the Western world / Europe often proved to be dangerous to Western interests.
I rather think that this strategy of nation building and stabilization promised to be the best way to ensure Western influence in the case of Afghanistan and the Iraq. So yea, I recognize a different strategy, but yet not different intentions.

 

[Ecofarm]

I rather think that this strategy of nation building and stabilization promised to be the best way to ensure Western influence in the case of Afghanistan and the Iraq.

I think western influence is good for Afghanistan and Iraq, don't you? I mean... representation, minority rights, hell... human rights, civil rights... that stuff can only help them.

So yea, I recognize a different strategy, but yet not different intentions.

Intentions can only ever be guessed at, so indicting them is weak and, frankly, desperate.

If we can agree that strategy is different, then we can move forward. Personally, I think the goals are different (it's very apparent) and policy is different (or, at least, the propaganda is). Given that we have different strategy, goals and policy... I think we can see drudging up old policy and different stuff is not helping anyone to see what is going on today. Saying "Oh, 50 years ago we did this crappy thing to this other country under different circumstances and with different goals" just does not move the conversation forward in a meaningful way. Really, bringing up old policy/actions during a discussion of current US/coalition strategy/goals/policy serves only to obfuscate.

In summary, I think we can stop with the "Oh, but 20 years ago the US did blah blah blah", because we can all see that the relevance is questionable at best and malevolent at worst.

 

[Winner]

I thought that was ignorance is bliss. Not strength.

Nope, Orwell convinced me otherwise.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In summary, I think we can stop with the "Oh, but 20 years ago the US did blah blah blah", because we can all see that the relevance is questionable at best and malevolent at worst.

In summary, it is typically the people who want to make the same mistakes which were made in the past that wish to ignore history and pesky contradictory facts. Because they can never apparently see that having simplistic notions of the world, where we and our allies are always 'good' and our enemies are always 'evil', is questionable at best and malevolent at worst.

Vietnam was a civil war which we should have never gotten involved. And so is Afghanistan. The parallels seem rather obvious to me.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think western influence is good for Afghanistan and Iraq, don't you? I mean... representation, minority rights, hell... human rights, civil rights... that stuff can only help them.

It may turn out beneficial. It is really hard to predict. For the Iraq I actually have a lot of hope. Afghanistan is more difficult with it's poverty and outmoded society.
But the question is not: Can Western influence be beneficial? Of course it can.
The question is: Can other nations trust this influence to beneficial? There absolutely can not. That is why I doubt that many people would welcome Western intervention in the Iran.

Intentions can only ever be guessed at, so indicting them is weak and, frankly, desperate.

I think they are very obvious. And they are in deed important. Only intentions are able to give a real hint on future actions and allow to integrate the foreign policy of a government in world history correctly. And besides that in my opinion it is a civil duty to question a governments intentions.

Or are you now seriously believing the US went to war over human rights? Or some dubious global Arabic thread?

You should read up on the PNAC which took part in developing foreign policy strategies for the Bush-Administration. In their policy papers the intentions behind attacks on Afghanistan and the Iraq become quit clear. And it is not the only reliable source supporting very unfavorable intentions you would like to play down as "weak".

If we can agree that strategy is different, then we can move forward.

I don't think so. I see no evidence for a general change in strategy. I only see that the US is quit flexible and pragmatic.

Personally, I think the goals are different (it's very apparent) and policy is different (or, at least, the propaganda is). Given that we have different strategy, goals and policy... I think we can see drudging up old policy and different stuff is not helping anyone to see what is going on today. Saying "Oh, 50 years ago we did this crappy thing to this other country under different circumstances and with different goals" just does not move the conversation forward in a meaningful way. Really, bringing up old policy/actions during a discussion of current US/coalition strategy/goals/policy serves only to obfuscate.

If the absolute goals really had changed I might agree. The facts suggest they have not.

In summary, I think we can stop with the "Oh, but 20 years ago the US did blah blah blah", because we can all see that the relevance is questionable at best and malevolent at worst.

I see that the official US-talk about foreign policy has been utter crab most of the time (and no I am not indulging Anti-Americanism, other countries are usually not better, they simply lack the power to prove it).
That is supposed to be not relevant? Because out of sudden everything has changed as you say? Seems not very likely.