I'm unsure who you mean by the 'unspeicified' neighbor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
Just talking crazy here, but I propose, in general, an effective strategy in regards to narcotics in Afghanistan would be to usurp, rather than destroy, control over the trade. The devil's in the details, of course, and it's probably "unethical", but if the trade could be directed towards an unspecified Afghan neighbor which poses a major risk to US security IOT destablize the regime and the subsequent funds invested in Afghan infrastructure, I'd be willing to consider removing the taboos on the drug trade.
but I can't think of any neighbors that we'd like to see less stable than they are. Quite the contrary, in fact -- and I'm applying that in all directions...
As for usurping the drug trade, apparently you aren't aware of the various loud screams and wails about the mere allegation of drug involvement by the CIA and / or others in South East Asia or Central America during either of those two dust-ups. I can hear the media and Congress now. Much less NATO...
Not to mention the fact that if you were in the drug trade, would you easily let someone interrupt your efforts...
Narcotics in Afghanistan are not a problem -- western agreement on what to do about them is a problem.
So many points, so little time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
I'm aware of Iran's drug problem. What I don't think is that it's sufficiently "massive" to warrant the kind of political repression necessary as a catalyst for popular action. Opium is one of the few leverages potentially available to the US in regards to Iran's domestic politics IMO.
No, it's not that massive but it is massive enough. Nor would increasing the size of that problem increase the potential for overthrow of the Mullahs.
Quote:
I think the popular election of Ahmadinejad after we more or less alienated Khatami speaks against that assertion to some degree.
Not really. It speaks to the power of Ayatollah Khameini to keep any effective opponent of the ballot and to the power of the Pasdaran to ensure that turnput was low --as it was -- and that votes went where they were supposed to.
Quote:
Yeah -- the Iranians don't have a general negative opinion of Americans, but I've heard of few Iranians speaking positively of our policies; especially the ones targetted at Iran itself.
That's because our policies are dumb.
Quote:
How many Americans recognize that it's the government and not the people of Iran that's the problem?
Most I talk to and I suspect that's a more eclectic crowd in age, social status and experiences than most. Americans, collectively, aren't nearly as dumb as the media and academy like to think.
Quote:
However wide or real, there is a perceived disconnect between our policies and our principles. The consequent degradation of our credibility diminishes the already limited access we have with the Iranian people.
The disconnect between our policies and our 'principles' is in the mind of those who select unrealistic principles IMO.
Just as an idle question, doesn't your concern for our principles sort of clash with your 'proposal?'
Quote:
What is the relationship between what you describe as Iranian national traits and the stability of the country (and presumbly its impact on the region)? Some argument could be made that expansionism and aggression are consequences of instability, which I assume is your point.
The cessation of 2.5M barrels per day of oil exports. We would REALLY like China and India to have all the oil they want. The relationship of that to what I said is that they would not want to accept any 'help.' They'd probably resist it and, trust me, we do not want to fight in Iran. I spent two years there ; it's not as bad as Afghanistan terrain wise but it's close; it's over 2.5 times as big and it has twice the population. So we mess up the world oil supply -- which was one thing we were quite careful NOT to do in going into Iraq...
Quote:
The terms "absurd" and "shallow" were in reference to the Soviet transition to democracy, not necessarily that the Soviet government made a transition of some kind. My apologies for not being more clear.
Not a problem, I knew what you meant. My point was that such words prejudice your following statement whatever it might be. With respect to the specifics, Russia and Iran are different. Russia is not totally western, there's some of the east in there but it is essentially western in most processes. Iran is totally Eastern, it is not at all western in thought processes.
Quote:
So I suppose again the question becomes: why do you think an unstable Iran would be negative for US policy?
As above.
Quote:
What if we included the assumption that Iran could potentially become a cooperative partner to US policy through a successful negotiation of said instability?
We aren't going to do that; though you certainly may. I don't like to deal in assumptions. :wry:
Quote:
Again, my apologies. I should have been more clear: I believe US corporate cooperation in Afghan opium could be hidden in contracts; I assumed that said contracts would be in the category of agriculture. I'm not particularly concerned about the categorization; more concerned with how to make US involvement in the proposed policy less (1) transparant and obvious and (2) more acceptable to those elements of our society which have significant sway in our government. Maybe this part of the proposal is unworkable; I don't know. I'm only exploring ways in which to make the plan acceptable to those relevant in the decision-making process. And yes -- I'm assuming our politicians are realists and not idealists.
Some of both -- however, what you propose is I believe a little much for most of them to accept.
Quote:
I wasn't born then since I really didn't have anything on my mind whatsoever. :)
That was obvious.
Quote:
Since it's apparent we already have widespread involvement in the drug business, I don't see the objections against doing it again if done "right".
Actually it's not apparent; while there was some, it was not as widespread as the media and some in Congress wanted to think. If you don't see any reason not to do what you suggest, you may want to reconsider any oaths you might have to take in the near future.
Quote:
By "right", I mean effectively for as long as possible since anything will eventually fail if run long enough. Yeah -- Congress will raise a fuss at some point, some heads will roll, and some other strategy will be found until that is compromised too. Isn't that how politics works anyways?
If you are a heroin user, then I suppose you're entitled to use the word 'right' in any effort that might enable the trade. If you aren't one, that's probably a bad word to use in deference to those it'll harm. The War on Drugs is not working and is a dumb idea but enabling a trade that does as much damage to people and nations is even more dumb.
Quote:
True. Got me. I admit mistakenly using "Taliban" as a synonym for "bad guys" in Afghanistan. I include the smugglers, whatever their identity, in the "bad guy" category for the reasons you cited. OK -- so we co-opt the "crooks" and the farmers involved in opium, make a few bucks, and, most importantly IMO, invest all that hard-earned cash in developing infrastructure for "[effective central government]" in a country which never has experienced it. That's my primary concern; I threw in Iran as a second goose egg, but I'm not really concerned where the opium would end up if it does not adversely impact US security interests. :)
So I suppose a rework of the presentation is necessary.
This from the guy who is derisory about "our self-proclaimed political principles." One who states "However wide or real, there is a perceived disconnect between our policies and our principles" then advocates a totally unprincipled effort...
Either mediocre satire or bad taste, not sure which. Both ? ;)
Tilting at windmills is fun but I think I'll go sack out and rest my lance.
Sorry for the delay, got sidetracked looking for windmills
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
As I am reading Gentile, he is contrasting a large force engaged in "hearts and minds" (stability ops, "nation building", whatever) with "other military means". Since he doesn't define the latter term, I guess it's left to our imaginations. My image is mobile light infantry (conventional, special ops and extra-special ops) knowing where it's going and what it will do when it gets there. What did "other military means" mean to you and what capability is missing?
Partly what you said but a couple of other things not for an unclassified discussion. We do not right now have the full capability required in any of those things though all are being developed.
Quote:
I read Gentile as focusing on AQ as the "main enemy" in that theatre ... Whom do you see as the opponents ?
The various Taliban groups (there are a number) plus the Heroin smugglers and the many various warlords and tribes who very much do not want a strong central government * and, if we get dumb or too careless, most of the rest of the population who do not like foreigners but, so far, are being nice and polite as is their wont.
* They will be low key and play both ends against the middle but will fight if they feel too much progress is being made.
Gian is right, AQ is the main effort as far as I can tell, I just like to remind folks there's more to it than that. I also strongly suggest that any 'leaning' in Afghanistan is strictly a matter of convenience and is quite temporary unless there is heavy family involvement.
It would help if in quoting several peopls, you'd idntify the quotes by person.
I'll just address those points you made with respect to my comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
...What I described is essentially the realist position on morality and principles in politics.
No, what you described is the textbook version of that position. Reality has a very different take.
Quote:
Your second sentence in the quoted statement reinforces that view. Destroying one's own credibility is not in one's own interest. Therefore, one should at least maintain the appearance of credibility. "Sensible" principles would be a way to construct an appearance of credibility.
Again you promote academic theory; we have numerous examples of bright young things doing that over the years, Bundy, Wolfowitz... As the Actress said to the Bishop "You not only shouldn't do anything that's wrong, you should not even give the appearance of doing anything that's wrong..." Unfortunately, the very bright are not inclined to listen to an actress.
Quote:
I agree. Politics and soldiering are completely different. One requires deception, manipulation, and exploitation. The other requires absolute trust, courage, and exertion. It's why I'm involved in one and not the other. ;)
Interesting. May I ask which you are involved in?
Quote:
Which of course leads to the question of the extent of influence enjoyed by those in the opium trade.
Directly contingent upon family ties (which your scheme cannot replicate) and secondarily the amount of money flowing, I'm quite sure.
Quote:
That's one cause, certainly. Another, perhaps, is that we really have no national concensus of what consistute our values.
I disagree, aberrant schemes have caused most of our foreign policy gaffes and deviations from principle. They have almost always been dreamed up by bright young things who see no problem in just a little deviation from principle for impressive gains. Such idiotic thinking put us in Viet Nam and put us in Iraq in a less than satisfactory mode. The slight deviations from principle have invariably caused more problems than they solved and as one who spent over 45 years cleaning up after those kinds of dipwad screwups, I'm not at all in favor of them. I've got a son who's now doing cleanup work -- he's not in favor of them either.
You're also incorrect in your assertion there is no national consensus on what constitutes our values. There is one -- the problem is that the values (and I use the term loosely) of academe and our national media do not sign on to that consensus -- which is essentially, do what's right. In any nation of over 300 million, there will always be many views on any topic -- but a consensus of a slight majority is pretty well convinced of what is right and what is wrong; the quibbling voices arguing other positions do not change that, nor does the matter that the educational and media establishments also differ alter the fact.
You earlier asked this:
Quote:
More or less. My question to you is: what is the alternative to "ends-justify-means"? Isn't that how we operate? We come up with some goal, then put together plan a that will attain it. Doesn't the "end" compel us to use some particular "means" that otherwise would not be done?.
No, it is not how we operate -- again regardless of the jaundiced view of many in the halls of ivy and the media. It is, regrettably, how we have on occasion operated, thus the partial justification for their view -- and we are still paying the price for most of those aberrations everyday. No, the end does not compel us to do what you or others suggest; we have sometimes done so not because of compulsion but simply because it seemed easier at the time. It was not. It never is.
I too find myself somewhat perplexed at
some of the things you suggest PRIDE,
But since others are doing such an excellent job of addressing that I'll limit myself to something simple that I can handle without possibly breaking my brain:wry:
Principles when looked at as prisms may very easily be confused as having no more solidity then traditions. In so far as ones ability to pick and/or choose in order to facilitate actions in order to attain given goals.
Fortunately for the human race mankind does have the inherent knowledge that right and wrong do exist and as such conscience can and should play a prominent role in decisions.
A principled man will make mistakes both ignorantly or by choice, he will however if he knows what those principles are have to ability to judge himself in such a manner as to hopefully not continue along foolhardy paths.
For he that chooses to manipulate those principles in such a way as to legitimize his own wants without regard to others life will be very painful in both the short and the long term.
This goes doubly for a govt. These exist for a purpose and as such interact for a purpose. When these interactions take place without attention and consideration for those whom govt represents then you can take what the unprincipled man gets and multiply it by about a million.
There will always be "easier" ways and the right way, as Ken pointed out the former more oft than not results in great sorrow and burden for many and rarely achieves that which it sought.
On the Iran thing-
A race car driver wants to win the race so he does everything he can to make his car the fastest, then for good measure he tampers with the opponents car.
HE wins:D
The rest of the story-
half way through the race the opponents car breaks down, and in doing so runs into the car next to him. This causes the opponent to spin into the wall where he is then run into by twenty other cars. He survives but three others in the pile up don't, one of which was the younger brother of the driver who won.
And the first car that was hit by the opponents vehicle was run off the racetrack over the barrier into the pit crew areas where 4 are injured and the father of our winner was crushed .
Long story short, you may get what you want but more often than not you probably won't like what you got. :(