Results 1 to 20 of 96

Thread: Afghanistan indicators

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Answer this: What trusted, certain and legal means does the segment of the populace represented by the Taliban have to participate in Afghan politics?? None. The Constitution guarantees they have no legal options; Karzai guarantees they have no legal options; and we protect both of the above.
    Do you believe that the Taliban want to "participate in Afghan politics" as anything but a ruler?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    The issue isn't why would the Taliban be willing to work with us, the issue is Karzai not wanting us to work with the Taliban. The Northern Alliance likes things just the way they are. They do not want to give up their little monopoly on governance in Afghanistan; and are very happy to have us stay and guarantee it for them.
    The issue is that neither side will "work with" the other. They will fight until one loses, and the winner will take all. We're not talking about Democrats and Republicans here; this is Afghanistan. For us, a Taliban win is unacceptable and a Karzai win is not. Silly corner to be in, but we backed ourselves into it when we decided to try to govern Afghanistan by proxy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    We need to refocus on the mission, and the mission is AQ. The Taliban is the key to AQ. Getting to an Afghan government that has room for both Northern Alliance and Taliban "parties" is the key to someday getting to stability in that troubled land.
    Do you really believe that if we just find the "right" government structure the Taliban, Karzai, and all other factions will all sit together, play nicely, and morph into good little democratic practitioners? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    At some point someone needs to take into account the interest of the people who actually live there. The people of Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan don't want to be occupied by a Tajik army any more than they do by a US army.
    The people who live there don't have one "interest". They have many perceived "interests", and those interests are often conflicting. That's why they fight a lot. Neither Karzai nor the Taliban have any concern for the interests of the people or any segment thereof; they want power, all of it. If they get it they will advance their own interests and crush their opposition until they are overthrown. Again, this is Afghanistan, not the Netherlands. If it was the Netherlands we wouldn't be there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    We picked aside, and then we lost sight of our mission. Time to refocus on the mission and become more neutral in our approach. It's time to learn and practice post-colonial intervention.
    We didn't pick a side. We created a side to advance our interests, and now we're shocked and horrified that the side we created is pursuing its own interests. Duh. Time for us to grow a collective brain cell and stop trying to install governments in these places. It's not something we have the tools or capacity to do and it requires more commitment then we are willing to make.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 12-20-2010 at 09:55 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •