This is an excellent historical primer on Afghanistan/Pakistan/Colonial influences

[Postman]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/polk
An Open Letter to President Obama

[sui generis]

1. sadly

"What actually brought all the insurgencies, including the one in Vietnam, to a halt was the withdrawal of the foreigners."

That's just insipid. Also, this is an extended version of The Taliban Is Not Al Qaeda, which is an apologist tactic.

Back to basics: If we uphold and enforce a standard of human rights with every country, group, occupation, and economy we encounter, groups like the Taliban cannot prosper and thrive as they do today.

We should be WILLING to deal with the Taliban, provided it builds a human rights charter. We should be willing to walk out of Afghanistan, provided they put human rights first and foremost in their choices. We should not be willing to walk out of Afghanistan just to stop "the insurgency".

That's like saying when a man is standing he is not sitting. Truly overstating the obvious. Our ojective should not be conquering. It should not be "planting the seeds of democracy", by which California has shown one can remove civil rights and violate equal protection.

We should be where we go to plant the seeds of human rights - because that alone is what will change violent extremism to something quite unfashionable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Seeds do not sprout well on a battlefield.

Despicable and benighted as they are, the Taliban IS a coherent group that CAN be dealt with. And they are NOT Al Queda. They can be split from Al Queda.

This guy is on the money. We have no business being there, killing their people because they kill their own people. Reform can only come with peace.

We need an exit plan. We need clearly stated goals that the world can see we are working toward. We need an end-game. Staying to fight the insurgency, when the insurgency is only because we are there, is nothing more than Ouroboros eating his own tail.

[sui generis]

6. that argument can be applied anywhere in every war

The Taliban is not al qaeda but they certainly furnish much of al qaeda's ranks.

At some point we have to toughen up our stance on human rights, because tacitly looking the other way while they "figure it out" on their own is the same thing as condoning it.

The nazis were a coherent group too, and they weren't al qaeda either. I think the guy's heart is in the right place, but his methods aren't any more rational than any other solution.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. I disagree. The Taliban is essentially a Pashtun nationalist group, with

only the slightest ties to Al Queda, and the only reason they 'furnish much of Al Queda's ranks' (a posit I also disagree with) is because 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

As for the human rights angle, does it really matter to Afghani girls if their school is blown up by the Taliban or blown up by US jets?

Yes, the Taliban unjustly executed dozens, hundreds of Afghanis. So to punish the Taliban, we blow up thousands of Afghanis.

Just because the Bush administration was incapable of differentiating between the parties over there, doesn't mean we have to persist in their mistakes. We can focus on Al Queda, separate them from the Taliban, and deal with the Taliban separately from Al Queda. The Taliban never attacked us. Our fight is not with them. If we can get them to settle for a separate peace, we should pursue that. Because we will NOT be able to defeat the Taliban without exterminating the entire Pashtun people - and how's THAT good for their human rights?

[sui generis]

9. I didn't say to exterminate the Taliban. I did say that

if we stay and demand, even enforce a human rights standard, the Taliban will be forced to change or be starved in favor of more enlightened organizations.

The drama is not black and white but full of color. Our mistakes are to condone with silence. Our mistakes are to put human rights second or even last in our criteria for success.

Walking out of the mess we created is morally wrong, but I fully expect we'll do so anyway, without setting a means of ANY kind for developing human rights priorities, and in THIS administration.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. You just don't get it. We CANNOT 'enforce a human rights standard'

with tanks and jets. As long as we are there, the Taliban WILL direct an insurgency unless we come to separate terms with them. All our fight against the Taliban does is attract them more willing recruits.

What you are talking about is a permanent occupation of Afghanistan - an impossible prospect. We can do far more for human rights by pulling out the troops but staying engaged diplomatically with the Afghani government, which may or may not include the Taliban.

We CANNOT militarily defeat the Taliban. We just don't have the resources or the ruthlessness it would require.

[sui generis]

11. I'm not saying any of that crap.

Stop putting words in my mouth so you can have an argument with yourself.

Seriously, you are extrapolating a lot of bad and not very imaginatively either. Oh I do get it. I'm saying change the fucking Taliban, but not by turning tail and running.

At best we disagree, no ad hominem required.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. That is EXACTLY what you are saying.

We can have NO influence on the Taliban so long as we are trying to kill them. Please, tell me how that works.

We have three choices. Deal with the Taliban. Kill the Taliban. Go away and leave the Taliban to do as they will. As I described above, the 2nd option won't work - trying to kill an indigenous resistance movement never does, because all military action just gains them more recruits. Obviously, the 3rd option is unacceptable. Therefore, we must separate the Taliban from Al Queda and DEAL with them. Just as the 'surge' in Iraq dealt with insurgents by making separate agreements with them.

It is SO rovian to call dealing with your enemies 'turning tail and running'.

[sui generis]

13. Now you done did it.

When I am telling you the words that are coming out of my mouth and what they mean, your interpretation is not required. The opposite of what you think is always the worst, to a black and white thinker. I had thought you were smarter than that, but I'm always willing to amend my opinions with facts.

And now the Rovian comment is an ad hominem. I'll be direct: That's so fucking ignorant of you, and also an ad hominem, the refuge of the mentally challenged. Get frustrated in a conversation? Call them a troll/republican/freeper/rovian. What the fuck ever missy.

We disagree, and you are not "righter" than I am.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Beg your pardon, but you are the one who called dealing with the Taliban

'turning tail and running', which is something I NEVER proposed - read back in the thread. My pointing out that that is a rovian tactic was merely to point out that you are using logical short-cuts, misrepresenting my position and then attacking that misrepresentation.

And you never did explain just HOW we are to 'influence' the Taliban while we are trying to kill them. If someone was trying to kill you, would you be likely to reflect on your lifestyle or simply try to kill them first? I'm sorry, I just don't see how we can possibly engage the Taliban and encourage them to change while we are blowing up their homes.

Perhaps you can explain that to me.

[sui generis]

16. can the snark

Pacifists are absolutely the worst aggressive debaters, ironically.

If you want to put money for bridges and schools into a region, the Taliban does not get to involve itself in the interception or distribution (as a receiver) of those funds.

And this doesn't just apply to the Taliban. If you have a standard for accountability, and we promote a standard for governance that has as its central theme a core set of human rights, then anyone who doesn't adhere that that willingly can starve or start to evolve.

Economics is another tool, and the rovian straw man you threw out there could be made to apply to any argument by the way, including economics.

I'm sorry my inadvertent use of that phrase bothered you personally, but the writing is on the wall here. The Taliban blows up eight of our soldiers in a tightly organized initiative two weekends ago. So we leave. What do YOU call that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. As a former Marine, I would hardly call myself a pacifist.

And what good does it do to build bridges and schools when the insurgents who you are refusing to deal with just turn around and blow them up?

And, where did I say anything about the cost of our troops? The Taliban kill far more of their own people than they do of ours. But as long as we are there attacking them, they will continue to get recruits.

As the writer of the article at the beginning of this explained, we have to deal with not a single government or a single insurgency - every valley is essentially self-governing, and we have to deal with 20,000 different political entities. In the south and east, they are mostly Pashtun, and mostly favorable to the Taliban. They are, for all practical purposes, 16th century fiefdoms with 20th century weapons. The only people who can bring them into the 21st century are themselves, and they are not going to be inclined to take direction from people they are at war with.

"...anyone who doesn't adhere to than willingly can starve or start to evolve." Seriously? That's how Stalin dealt with the peasant class in the 1920s - and they DID starve. You advocate this as a model for US foreign relations?

Even bringing in overwhelming manpower - 500K new troops - would only suppress the insurgency for a time. Tactically, we need to concentrate on Al Queda, send troops after Taliban forces only in response to specific Taliban attacks and then only as supplemental forces to the Afghan army. That's what worked in Iraq - let the locals take the lead. We need to propagandize them, to make them understand that Al Queda's fight is not their fight, and put the onus of the war on Al Queda and the more radical elements of the Taliban, such as Mullah Omar. With proper propagandizing the populace will embrace the notion that a mujahadin is a person who fights openly and proudly for his faith, and that the masked hoodlums who throw acid at schoolgirls are NOT mujahadin - split the radicals away from the Taliban.

I think that giving Karzai a million dollars or so to leave the country and never come back would probably be beneficial as well - the cost would certainly be less than continued support of a corrupt government that the Afghanis consider illegitimate.

There are options other than increasing troop levels and allowing mission creep to draw us off our hunt for Al Queda.

[sui generis]

18. that was a more civil attempt BUT

"...anyone who doesn't adhere to than willingly can starve or start to evolve." Seriously? That's how Stalin dealt with the peasant class in the 1920s - and they DID starve. You advocate this as a model for US foreign relations?

1. you really like to take what I say out of context and
2. you can't help yourself, so now I'm a stalinist peasant starving bad guy.

Jesus. I appreciate the length of your reply as an attempt at rational discourse but you're still setting up straw men.

Let's see, in my experience mujahadin are embittered auslander in every non-Indian country that uses the term, including Pakistan. That may have all changed in the past ten years, but there is a whole set of socially constructed baggage that follows supporting any social order who fights openly and proudly for their faith, regardless of who is backing it with arms, money or just plain pollyana naivete.

Uh, and Stalin? Those people starved not because they refused to comply but because Stalin shortsheeted the russian agrarian economy and followed that up by selling wheat abroad, leaving people to starve for purely economic reasons that had nothing to do with winning the hearts and minds into his particular pathology.

No the problem is we were naive and stupid when we went in there, and we're still pretty naive and stupid.

I'm not very generous of spirit to the Taliban, nor do I believe there are "good Talibans" and "bad Talibans". The Taliban has grown its membership by force and blackmail, and doesn't deserve to exist. Now before you put words in my mouth about exterminating the Taliban, which I don't advocate in the terms you relish applying, I don't believe any organization has a right to exist that exists at the loss of human rights.

We ARE responsible, and we're part of the reason it exists at all. What I've seen in the last three weeks news cycles are exactly the talking points you bring to this conversation: oh, we Taliban are not all bad, we are not al qaeda, we are not the problem.

Actually that's dead wrong, but only half the story. Every time we tacitly admit that sovereignty trumps human rights, we condone organizations like the Taliban ruling so long as tarnish of their dirty little secrets doesn't outweigh any economic advantage we hope to gain. I think we could have a tougher standard and make a difference.

But then again, California showed us with Proposition 8 that all democracy amounts to is majority vote, so clearly our mission in Afghanistan is over. The seeds are still there for the next al qaeda to form, and truth be told the Taliban may indeed be telling the truth. They're not al qaeda but they are closely related to traditional terrorism, in that civilian targets are good substitutes for military targets, so we really shouldn't be swallowing their personal re-characterization as anything but semantics.

I do believe we disagree, and I've been able to make my points without any swipes at you other than irritation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Excellent article. Alas, Obama is making political rather than strategic decisions. K&R

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. So glad you found this to share. Most important history to know.

Of course, the article assumes we are in the area for political reasons, not control of oil and gas.
"Neither understood the complex social and political makeup of the country. Without doing so, we cannot hope to accomplish our objectives......"
Without stating the objectives. I assume the author means "to win" as an objective, but still does not address the real reasons.

It does correctly point out we have remained arrogantly ignorant of other cultures, time and again.

"They ( the Taliban ) and many non-Taliban Afghans, regard us, as they regarded the Russians, as foreign, anti-Muslim invaders."
uhhh...DUH. Probably because that is what we are. How the hell do you bomb Pearl Harbor and expect Americans to like the Japanese in 1941? It's the same damn thing in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan.

[Laelth]

5. That is excellent. Thanks. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[tekisui]

7. knr!~

[ieoeja]

14. No mention of socialists in Pakistan.

80% support in public opinion polls, and they don't even rate a mention?

Elected to run Pakistan until we aided a rightist coup, and they don't even rate a mention?

He ignores one of the largest political entities in Pakistan, and *we* don't understand Pakistan?