Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
Carl,

Who do you think "the Afghans" are? Who do you think "the Taliban" are?

I know this may sound trite, but Afghanistan is not America. The concept of patronage as it exists in Afghanistan is a world away from the politics, governance and path to personal and family opportunities that exist in the US.

"The Afghans" (as I believe you are dividing society) are primarily those individuals, families and tribes who enjoy patronage-based opportunity under the current government that we elevated into power.

"The Taliban" is by and large the other half of Afghan society who's families or tribes, or themselves individually, were deposed of power and opportunity by our intervention, or who maybe never had power or opportunity but would still like some. This is augmented by "little t Taliban" who are either bored young men who would rather ride with Crazy Horse and fight the invaders than live on the reservation and eat government beef; also those who have been injured by our operations and presence and naturally resist what they reasonably see as an illegitimate foreign intrusion.

Much of our problem in Afghanistan policy-wise is that we ignored Afghan culture and devised and imposed a system that appealed to our Western sensibilities. Then, militarily, we waged a campaign and built military capacity that equally was much more tuned to our Western ideas of what insurgency is than to the realities of the insurgency we were up against.

This is why Mr. Karzai has come across as ungrateful when he dares to stand up and challenge some of our more disruptive approaches, perspectives and activities. Sure, he is very grateful for being handed the keys to power and opportunity in Afghanistan. Sure he is very grateful for the Billions of dollars we have poured into the country that have enriched those with patronage power beyond they wildest fantasies. Sure he is grateful that we could not see that the constitution he and a few buddies put together served far more to centralize patronage into a giant Ponzi scheme because all we could see was "centralized government." But he is not grateful when we do things that flame the fires of resistance insurgency and make his backdoor deals more difficult and expensive to sustain.

Best we leave Afghanistan to Afghans. All Afghans, not just those we put on our team. They will sort things out and will quickly walk away from much that we have worked so hard to emplace and see as so essential to success in the terms we value so much, but that mean so little there.
That's seven paragraphs and not a word about the Pak Army/ISI and the support given Taliban & Co by them nor the sanctuary given within Pakistan. As I said about actions, if nothing be done about those devil's spawn, the Pak Army/ISI, the thing can't be done. And without intellectual recognition of the problem, no action can be taken. And it will be impossible to arrange this "Best we leave Afghanistan to Afghans. All Afghans, not just those we put on our team. They will sort things out and will quickly walk away from much that we have worked so hard to emplace and see as so essential to success in the terms we value so much, but that mean so little there."

I disagree that it is the poor downtrodden Pathans being led by the plucky Talibanis in a noble effort to regain what is rightfully theirs. I've read too many accounts of Pathans being killed by Taliban & Co for disagreeing to think things that simple.