Afghanistan, and the situation there.

Seeing the spirited discussion going on there about Afghanistan in the Egyptian/Midde-east Protest thread, which is swiftly becoming the cradle of forum discussion, this is to continue that without bringing the blamhammer down on our fragile skulls.

I think cracks are beginning to appear in the Taliban. They are beginning to alienate their hardliners and, thus, their previously most loyal troops, and are more dependent, says one Taliban commander, on less savoury sources, which I can only assume means mercenaries and fugitives. However, the coalitions main wing, the Americans, are also suffering from severe war exhaustion and financial problems.

The question is, do the Taliban break first, or do the Americans?

Everything will be futile if Pakistan doesn't let the coalition forces hunt down and exterminate the Taliban and other assorted radical islamists on Paki territory.

Pakistan won't. Unless they're strong-armed into allowing it, Afghanistan will be an endless conflict.

edited 1st Apr '11 7:04:34 PM by SavageHeathen

^

This.

Or at least the Taliban will never be completely irradicated until we can do so. I will say, however, that they are so low on dedicated personnel that now they just rely on paying small sums of money to the poor and desperate to either be suicide bombers, placing IED's, or firing RPG's at American Convoys.

We'll never get permission to go to Pakistan, so odds are this will just fizzle eventually and we'll leave. The Taliban will be broken for the most part though.

Thats it though. All the coalition needs to claim victory is for the Afghan army to be strong enough to hold the weakened Taliban at bay, and get the new regime on its feet.

Unfortunately, in terms of rights the new regime doesn't seem like much of a step forward.

^^^ Basically the same tactical mistake as Vietnam. We could have easily kicked the shit out of the NVA and VC by 1968 had we only decided to march towards Hanoi on the ground. The NVA and VC couldn't possibly beat us and the Soviets were likely bluffing over intervention if we did.

The same deal is going on in Afghanistan. If we aren't allowed sooner or later to step into Pakistan and deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda as they deserve (read: slaughtered to the last man.) Afghanistan will continue indefinitely. Or worse, will change directions and take over the nuclear armed Pakistani government.

edited 1st Apr '11 7:09:03 PM by MajorTom

How strong is Pakistans central governments position right now anyway? Aren't they under pressure themselves?

Pakistan doesn't quite work like that.

Pakistan won't let the US in because the people hate the West more than the government. The whole region will go apeshit. Even if we didn't care and tried to force them, Pakistan isn't like every other military in the Islamic world. They have the numbers and the equipment and the training (and the nukes, ultimately) to actually put up a DEVASTATING fight on the ground and in the air. The only area they'd get totally owned in the first strike would be on the sea, since every ship they have is in Karachi.

The only other way Pakistan gives us permission is if we basically sell Afghanistan's soul to them.

EDIT-

The central government is weak. The Army is the real power that governs in three of Pakistan's five provinces. The other two are too busy fighting each other AND the central government to worry about.

edited 1st Apr '11 7:17:58 PM by FFShinra

Then give it to them in exchange. We get rid of Afghanistan and we slaughter the Taliban. Double win.

The afghanis are so tribal that I seriously doubt they care at all about who the guy in the capital with the funny flags is.

edited 1st Apr '11 7:18:29 PM by SavageHeathen

That's essentially what we DID in the 1990s. Didn't work out too well for us then, won't do so now.

^^I imagine the Afghanis would have some choice words for both the coalition and their new government if that happened. On the other hand, having the whole region under one contiguous regime... no, it would end in bloodbath, disaster and either break up or years of civil strife. Not. Worth it.

edited 1st Apr '11 7:19:55 PM by GameChainsaw

If we hand it over to the pakis, it immediately becomes Someone Else's Problem.

Again, thats what we did in the 1990s. It didn't work that way. We'd be blamed for abandoning them for a second time. It might surprise you to know that most Afghans have no problem with us at the moment, and that includes the Pashtun. They're just annoyed we're backing Karzai.

^^Y'see, I don't believe in that. If what you do ultimately results in more corpses, you're answerable if you could have seen it coming.

EDIT: I never understood why we didn't take Karzai out when he rigged the election. Or when he started oppressing women again. He's not even that competent.

Further EDIT: Ninja'd... by a later post.

edited 1st Apr '11 7:26:42 PM by GameChainsaw

That last sentence sums up this whole dog and pony show.

If the Afghanis are on our side and want Karzai out, why don't we hand them his head on a platter?

It's not like we LIKE him, and he's as oppressive as the Taliban. If the afghanis want him dead, we should oblige.

edited 1st Apr '11 7:27:39 PM by SavageHeathen

Actually, Pakistan is probably doing the smart thing. They don't think we can win even if they did let us hunt the Taliban down. The T has too much popular support in the tribal areas where they come from, on both sides of the border. So, it's in their interest to wait until we leave, then come to some sort of understanding with the Taliban. From their perspective, it's just the smart thing to do.

Our biggest barrier isnt Pakistan, it's the Karzai regime. If we hadnt installed a corrupt, essentially criminal government, we might have the popular support. Until Karzai goes, I don't see how the Afghan conflict could end well for us.

Yeah, speaking from personal experience, even the people from his home town near Kandahar hate his guts. You can't even say that of Saddam.

I mentioned this in the Iraq thread, but we had the chance back in 2002 to put a truely friendly regime in power, led by the former King of Afghanistan. But noooo, we had to impose Karzai....

And we can't get rid of him now for a variety of reasons.

Actually, this guy would have been ideal. Oh well.

When I mean we had a chance, I mean the constituent assembly unanimously voted to return the monarchy, which would have served us well since Zahir Shah's rule was that of a modernizer. His only problem was that he didn't modernize the bureaucracy fast enough (thus maintaining the tribal system), which earned him his overthrow by his cousin, who in turn was overthrown by the communists. The US actively blocked the return is what I'm saying, not that he was a possible alternative.

Linky?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah

We should have put the King in place.

Look, Afghanis are tribals. Tribals don't like modern States or democracies.

They like semi-elective, figurehead kings with limited power, mostly for ceremony, symbolic unity and to wage war or stop any tribe that gets real uppity. For everything else, tribals want to be ruled by their customary law, the way they've been settling disputes since the dawn of time.

Seriously, screwing the King over was a huge mistake.

edited 1st Apr '11 8:24:53 PM by SavageHeathen

^ Actually, there's a thought.

Does anyone else not buy into the concept of 'installing' democracies? Maybe if the British and the US and Russia weren't meddling in their affairs for centuries, they'd be further along on the democracy scale.

edited 1st Apr '11 8:24:28 PM by johnnyfog

Eh, worked okay for India.

local democracy is in and of itself not bad. Forcing the actual state to be a Democratic Republic (tm) on the other hand, is stupid. A state should reflect its culture while still being progressive enough to be democratic at heart.

EDIT-

But back to Afghanistan, the King can still be returned. His son is still pretender and HE has more respect than Karzai as well.

edited 1st Apr '11 8:29:59 PM by FFShinra