Afghanistan, and the situation there.

Sure we can't go with the "take all the women" approach? If nothing else, a few generations will see a change in culture.

Education is the only way. They'll reach the conclusion on their own. Any other way and it'll seem imposed and thus invalid.

Education won't mean much, since the majority of them will probably drop out once they reach a marriageable age.

It'll help the male population if they can afford it, but females? Not so much. This applies to a lot of countries.

In their POV, "who would want a woman who is more interested in getting an education and earning a living instead of serving her husband and doing housework?"

edited 2nd Apr '11 5:36:59 PM by Signed

So the best way to change things is to flood them with American movies and tv? Maybe that might change a few opinions, though it could also provoke a counter reaction.

^^

People thought the same thing about Indian women and thats since been debunked. Will it be instant or uber-soon? No. Not at all. But it WILL happen.

It MIGHT happen. And only then, only if something drastic is done...such as trying to change their views on gender roles and values...but that would be just plain ethnocentric.

What might work for one country does not necessarily work for another. Marriageability is a big deal for girls in that country.

edited 2nd Apr '11 6:09:02 PM by Signed

I chose India because the situation for women are similar. In fact, the two countries share a history. It wasn't random.

Teach them to read and write in a common language with publicly provided education, and give them all access to the internet. The rest will handle itself the same way it's starting to in the rest of the middle east.

I like barkey's idea honestly. A sort of limited national uplift.

Introduce small cooperative businesses. We need a competing social unit to counter the tribal influence.

The business culture there works on who you know in that part of the world. That said, such an idea would work in urbanized areas like Kabul (in fact, maybe thats why Karzai has actual control there...who knows).

You want an in-depth look at Afghanistan? Read that.

The comments thread doesn't seem too respectful of the Lt Colonel.

I wouldn't expect the comments to be an accurate measure of the man's integrity or character, though.

The louder they yell, the more reason I should read his report.

Having been there myself, I'll say that I agree with much of what the Lt Colonel has to say.

Also, I'd like the opportunity to bitch slap anyone who discounts his opinion because he's a reservist. Our deployment tempo is actually higher than that of Active Duty. Or at least it was at the height of the war.

Afghanistan is a mess. It was a mess before NATO went in, it is a mess now, and it will be a mess when NATO leaves. I honestly think it will never change.

Honestly, in the long term what Afghanistan needs is a Saddam. Someone ruthless and iron-fisted enough to conquer them, shatter the authority of the tribes so they are only familial bonds, and then begin to build a national infrastructure.

It'd be an ugly and brutal dictatorship, but eventually this Saddam would get overthrown or would die, and things would be different, because regardless of how cruel it was, Afghanis would know what it is to be an actual country.

Would he not have to pretty much kill ninety percent or more of the population to get as far as taking over though? Afghans are stubborn. Anyone who has ever read even a tiny fraction of what Rudyard Kipling wrote about Afghanistan knows this to his or her very D.N.A.

He would have to literally wade eyebrows deep in blood in valley after valley after valley to beat them.

Yep. That's what it'll take.

Unless of course it's a Pashtun Warlord, then he's got over half of Afghanistans power base right there in the palm of his hand.

No, even a Saddam would be too ineffectual... There has only been two times when the area that is now Afghanistan has been conquered... The two who successfully conquered it were Alexander The Great and Genghis Khan.

So yeah, it pretty much takes a person willing, able and skilled enough as a conqueror to cut a swath through Central Asia.

edited 18th Feb '12 9:07:29 PM by GameGuruGG

There have been several occasions where it has been conquered and ruled over by other empires. It's not the "graveyard of empires" so much as the doormat.

...and even then, they still left earlier than other places — I mean, The British Empire fought the Afghans four times and lost (and after the 2nd Time, never directly interfered in Afghanistan again).

Then again, Afghanistan was just one part of a larger game — The Great Game.

various empire that control Afghan still left earlier than other places is because Afghan is not profitable and sit on the fringe.

controlling Punjab (Indian), Iranian highland (Iran), Fergana Valley (nomadic empire) all are more valuable than Afghan, so Afghan is dropped first. it is question of value not resistance of afghan people.

various other people managed to do that not just Genghis and Alesander. Sasanian Dynasty, Kushan, Nader Shah, Kwhrazem, etc

edited 19th Feb '12 8:27:43 PM by PhilippeO

They would really just want another King. Zahir Shah is gone, but his son is around. If he plays is cards right, he can sap the Pashtun nationalism that fuels Taliban recruitment and use it to give them what they have wanted for the last ten years and thats a real say in their country, which Bush kind of threw under the bus (sans the TokenMinority Token Pashtun Hamid Karzai) in favor of the Tajiks. The difference between royal Pashtuns versus Taliban Pashtuns would of course be that the Tajiks could actually trust the King....

Return of The King!!!

I think it's more like a doormat placed atop a spiky pit of death for empires.