View Full Version : A Final Solution to the Afghan question

03-13-2010, 09:02 PM
Much of the strategy of the war in Afghanistan is rightly focused on how to cut the cash supply of the Taliban. There are several camps in this debate. One says burn or destroy the opium crops. Another camp is worried about backlash and wants to subsidize wheat instead of opium. Another wants to let the farmers sell the opium and catch the middle men.

I propose a final solution. The best and most decisive strategy is to simply remove the farmers. No farmers = no opium. Reduced population = reduced potential support for the Taliban. The problem with Afghanistan is that the rural population is scattered and therefore hard to control. In warfare it is always best to play on your terms. The geography plays against us. We are not playing on our terms. This strategy would reverse the trend.

The army should conduct a psyop or advertisement campaign to convince large numbers of villagers that their lives would be greatly improved if they moved to America. This would not be that hard. Millions of poor people around the world risk their lives to illegally live in America. Those that read the pamphlets and want the opportunity to leave the country will be put on C-17 and shipped to a government created ethnic enclave in America in some remote location such as Montana. This is what immigrant groups did voluntarily in many periods of American history.

America has plenty of space for some millions of these people. It is extremely hard to build good schools, electricity, and provide water to these people in remote #### holes half a world away. The Taliban is there to screw things up and the geography and infrastructure there is horrible. It is easy to provide such services in the safety of Montana. Instead of paying them money to grow crap to help Afghanistan, educate them to be ranchers or something that is akin to their nomadic lifestyles in America. Give them some work that is easy to learn and is productive such as farming. They would then increase the American tax base rather than be a perpetual drain, risking American lives a world away.

The end state for Afghanistan would be to drastically reduce opium production and the rural population. Instead of vast area that needs to be constantly patrolled, there would be much less need to project power over wide swathes of a country that are barren of human life. The US could then clamp down on the urban areas and there would be peace. Empty spaces = who cares? If there is too much unemployment and overpopulation in the cities, we should not fool ourselves into thinking we can set up a Great Society program over there when there is constant suicide bombing. Depopulate the cities too. We can barely do welfare effectively in the safety of the US, but it is much better to do it here and invest in the US rather than some crappy country a world away. The Taliban would have far fewer people to recruit from. The Afghani population would constantly be trying to curry favor with the Americans in order to get a ticket to “New Kabul.” This would drastically shift their attitudes.

Of course no strategy is perfect. There will always be those nationalist/religious diehards who will not leave their #### hole. They will be very lonely when the unemployed kids leave to America, “the land of opportunity.” Then there would be the danger the relocated Afghani population could pose to Americans. The feds could monitor the Afghans in America as needed. The politics would be iffy too. Multiculturalism has become dominant in America. This is a useful ideology to use for this assimilation strategy; it is the ideology for an empire. Liberals would be easy to convince. Label all opposition as racist and heartless using much of the same immigration debate language.

I think millions of Afghanis would take the ticket if it was an option and this would decisively reduce Taliban power. The crux of this argument is that it would be more cost effective in the long term to operate with them here than way over there. This is basically a “trail of tears” updated for the twenty-first century. Consideration should also be made to putting these people on specially made reservations so as to best deliver aid and segregate them from society. They could keep some sovereignty and their ways and be a nation within a nation just as the Indians operate today. With different laws and government control we could keep the costs low, giving an improved standard of living, but one that is below minimum wage. They would be somewhat shielded from the “decadence of the West,” but they would be under surveillance so they could not start terror cells in the states. This plan has the benefit of treating them in a way outside of US law, but centralizing their population in a new location that is easy to control and safe.

Better yet, put them in Canada! Some diplomacy might be able to arrange this. Canada has lots of space and needs people. They are similarly multicultural and they have a better welfare system. They are our ally and have similar experience in dealing with Native Americans, putting them on reservations and such.

03-13-2010, 10:35 PM

For an opening post that is quite an argument, crazy IMHO and I have little doubt no-one in Montana (a place I like) let alone an independent neighbour, Canada - why not Mexico - would agree with. How does this resonate with the Afghan people?

No, even presenting this viewpoint is dangerous - yes, that happens to new ideas. Then calling it 'The Final Solution'.

Cost effectiveness alone would suggest other options, notably buying the heroin crop; as we have discussed on an older thread.

SWC has a variety of opinions present and we tend to shy away from such intense political viewpoints appearing here.

03-13-2010, 10:59 PM
Better yet, put them in Canada! Some diplomacy might be able to arrange this. Canada has lots of space and needs people. They are similarly multicultural and they have a better welfare system. They are our ally and have similar experience in dealing with Native Americans, putting them on reservations and such.

Hmmm, let me find a nice, polite (Canadian) way of responding - No. And, BTW, you should take a look at the differences in how we (Canadians) treated First Nations from how the US did; lots of abuses and abhorrent stuff, but we didn't use the same system.