Afghan Exit:why, how and more in country and beyond

[Dayuhan]

You parse the word as you like. I see abandon and I figure the rest of the world is most likely to see like that too.

What's the basis for this assumption about what the rest of the world will think? As far as I can tell from published commentary around the world, the prevailing opinion seems to be that we were bloody barmy to get bogged down in Afghanistan in the first place and that the sooner we're out the better. The idea of US intervention and armed nation building has not exactly been received with open arms around the world, in case you haven't noticed.

I have no problem at all with the world knowing that the patience of the US taxpayer is not unlimited. I have no problem at all with the world knowing that that the US will not provide unlimited to governments who steal from us or populaces who sit idly by and let their government steal from us without a visible murmur of dissent. I have no problem at all with the world knowing that we'll support those who work with us to the best of their abilities, but that our support is conditional. I have no problem at all with the world knowing that we are not a bunch of bloody idiots who will throw money and lives down a black hole for all eternity without revising a plan that is clearly not working. I have no problem at all with the world knowing that we are capable of recognizing and changing a dysfunctional policy, however belatedly.

We supplied the big force we have there now via routes other than Pakistan for months. If we reduce the force to the point where it can be supplied by air and the north route, we can sustain it indefinitely without Pakistan. We have never really tried. That bespeaks laziness, lack of imagination and being the mark for the sahibs in Pindi. The Afghans see that as does the world.

It all seems terribly easy to fix for people writing on the Internet, doesn't it? Any brilliant ideas floating around on how exactly to do this? You recognize, I assume, that the other routes we depend on are in the hands of governments and individuals who are every bit as capricious as the Pakistanis?

Did you ever see the movie The Servant with Dirk Bogarde? It is a dark and twisted tale about how man servent takes over the household through malevolent force of character that subtly overwhelmed the employer. The employer could have stopped things and ruled the roost at any time but he never even tried. Weak character you see. We're the employer.

We are not in a position to fire the Pakistanis. They are there. They will act in their perceived interest no matter what we do or say. The decision to try to build a nation of our liking in Afghanistan is what's responsible for this situation, not the Pakistanis.

The single worst decision we could make at this point would be to conclude that since we must fix Afghanistan and we can't fix Afghanistan without fixing Pakistan, we therefore have to fix Pakistan too. Follies of that magnitude are what bring great powers down.

Yep, heard that exact same argument in 1973-1975.

Yes, it was true then as well.

Well that is a start. Good for you. But I note that you incorporate so many provisos that you would be able to leave any time you felt like it and could easily avoid taking those people with us by saying we haven't been able to fully investigate.

Why should we take anyone with us when we leave? We're leaving them with a country, a government, and an army... not perfect ones, but it's not our job to make them work, it's theirs. If they give a rat's ass about their country, why would they want to come with us, instead of staying and fighting for their country? At what point would you expect them to take it over themselves? No nation anywhere was ever built or secured by any means other than the blood and sweat of its own citizens.

Don't conflate the gov with individuals. In order to save those individuals, millions of them perhaps, we might have to put up with a bad gov. It wouldn't be the first time. If you insist on putting behavior of the gov foremost, that is presenting an excuse to bug out on the individuals.

So you propose to save the people from their own government? How do you propose to do that? Take that government away and install a new one (worked ever so well in Vietnam)? We are a nation. We have a government. That government deals with other governments. Relations between the Afghan government and people are something Afghans need to work out.

I don't see these supposed millions out in the streets protesting corruption or begging the US to stay.

You ignore the outside influences in both cases again, the Soviet Union and Red China in the one case, and the Pak Army/ISI in the other.

You ignore the blue whale in the outside influence drawing room: us. The support we gave South Vietnam was orders of magnitude beyond what the North received from anyone. The support we've given the Afghan Government is orders of magnitude beyond anything the Taliban has received from Pakistan. If winning or losing was a function of outside influence, Duong Van Minh would have been strolling down a boulevard in Hanoi and the Taliban would have been exterminated years ago. Outside influence or support means squat if the people on the receiving end haven't the will to fight or are too busy stealing the money to bother fighting.

Maybe not, but if you make a promise, you should keep it.

What exactly was promised... to whom, by whom, and when?