NATO in Afghanistan till 2015 (merged thread)

[carl]

David: That was a very good article. The French came. They evaluated the situation and determined things could not work as they stood. Then they determined that they couldn't change our behavior. If that couldn't be done there was no sense staying so they leave. Sensible behavior that takes into account conditions as they are.

Our behavior, on the other hand, is based upon what we determined things would be and no change permitted. We decided Karzai was the man for the job and no matter what happens we will back him. The article mentions American military objecting to something the French wanted because that would interfere with a timetable. Again, we decided things were going to go one way and no change permitted, regardless of conditions.

There is a lesson of some kind to be learned from this. The French will change if something doesn't work. We won't and will instead just pretend.

Firn: I don't agree that Afghan cooperation wasn't forthcoming. We never used the power we had to demand things from the gov. We paid all the bills. All of them. If we want something, like less stealing, we should be able to throw our weight around and get it. We never really did. Instead we just hoped that our man Karzai would do the right thing. But we never forced him to.

We got bluffed by Karzai as badly as we got bluffed by the Pak Army/ISI. In both cases we proclaimed our confidence in them and in both cases we just refused to admit we made a mistake. It is like the hallmark of our big gov/military culture is an absolute belief that we can predict the correct course of action right off the bat. All that ensues is predicated on preserving that belief so we won't change and pretend that things are just swell.

[gute]

As far as I'm concerned this is all a moot point after this latest 'koran burning' b.s. What a bunch of f-ing savages! Let's get the hell out of there and let em sort it out - maybe when it's all over the "Afghan" will become a endangered species.

Okay, I feel better. Anyways, as much as I appreciate what or allies have done, etc - I've never quite understood why a country like the U.S. with 300+ million could not handle Afghanistan by ourselves. I get the whole NATO thing, but we should have done this by ourselves. Again, I do very much appreciate what our allies have done, are doing and their sacrifices.

IMO, we (the U.S.) do not nation build well, at least not in non-western countries/cultures because we are not willing to do what is necessary to bring stability and make the people conform.

[Presley Cannady]

...maybe when it's all over the "Afghan" will become a endangered species.

Like the last time around?

[tequila]

As far as I'm concerned this is all a moot point after this latest 'koran burning' b.s. What a bunch of f-ing savages! Let's get the hell out of there and let em sort it out - maybe when it's all over the "Afghan" will become a endangered species.

Okay, I feel better. Anyways, as much as I appreciate what or allies have done, etc - I've never quite understood why a country like the U.S. with 300+ million could not handle Afghanistan by ourselves. I get the whole NATO thing, but we should have done this by ourselves. Again, I do very much appreciate what our allies have done, are doing and their sacrifices.

IMO, we (the U.S.) do not nation build well, at least not in non-western countries/cultures because we are not willing to do what is necessary to bring stability and make the people conform.

If the goal of this war was ever to "make the people conform", it was lost before the first bomb dropped. Three hundred million people or no, you're not going to make any society in the modern world "conform" to what a bunch of foreigners want.

The Soviets and their Khalqi semi-allies tried to do so and killed millions. Was that a worthy goal? Did Afghan society become more or less radicalized as a result?

[davidbfpo]

Listening to a BBC Radio yesterday a former Kabul correspondent referred to the exit of the Norwegian contingent from a northern province - Faryab (RC-North), after nine years and the apparent increase in local Taliban activity.

I had not seen any reporting here that Norway had left.

A quick search found they left in October 2012, with nine deaths:http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/09/...istan-pullout/

A small presence remains (97 persons), probably a PRT and those in Kabul:http://www.isaf.nato.int/troop-numbe...rway/index.php

Given the closeness of the Nordic nations on many foreign policy matters I note both Denmark and Sweden have remained, with battalion-sized contingents - in RC-N and RC-SW respectively.

[davidbfpo]

Sadly I missed the end of the Danish combat role, but a Danish contact explained this week what happened. The Danes have been fighting for twelve years, largely in Helmand - alongside and under UK command, until the 22nd July 2013:

The dozen years in Afghanistan cost the lives of 43 Danish soldiers and resulted in total costs of approximately 15 billion kroner. An additional 211 soldiers were injured in Afghanistan....Although the last combat troops have now left Afghanistan, a number of Danish defence personnel will remain in the country in order to train the Afghan police force and to man special units and tanks.

Link:http://cphpost.dk/international/comb...ghanistan-over

The Danish exit contrary to political expectations is due to the UK's draw down:

Camp Price, where the Danish soldiers are stationed, is run by the British and will be closed down in August, prompting an early return for the Danish soldiers.

Link:http://cphpost.dk/international/denm...hanistan-early

[Firn]

Firn: I don't agree that Afghan cooperation wasn't forthcoming. We never used the power we had to demand things from the gov. We paid all the bills. All of them. If we want something, like less stealing, we should be able to throw our weight around and get it. We never really did. Instead we just hoped that our man Karzai would do the right thing. But we never forced him to.

We got bluffed by Karzai as badly as we got bluffed by the Pak Army/ISI. In both cases we proclaimed our confidence in them and in both cases we just refused to admit we made a mistake. It is like the hallmark of our big gov/military culture is an absolute belief that we can predict the correct course of action right off the bat. All that ensues is predicated on preserving that belief so we won't change and pretend that things are just swell.

I just wanted to point out that it is far easier to achieve a limited political goal depending mostly on your own ressources then doing so with a far more bigger political goal where you depend to a large degree on the 'hearts and minds' of others...

Overall I agree with you.