The big problem is lots of places in Afghanistan do legitimately want bad people. It is worth it to keep radical clerics that spread anti-US hatred from becoming, say, the governor of Helmand Province.
That's the big problem, most of the candidates who step up for positions like that are either radical clerics, or corrupt warlords. The clerics will gather an idiotic religious base to rally around them for votes(Sound familiar?) and the Warlords get their votes by essentially gathering the support of people who are from the same village or family as the warlord, and people who decide that they want to support this guy and get him to win so they can reap the benefits of being friends with the corrupt warlor- err, governor.
edited 28th Jun '11 10:43:35 AM by Barkey
I can't even begin to imagine a culture where criticizing someone in authority at all is rude. That's so alien and very frightening.
Don't traditional warlords unite a bunch of bickering clans by rallying them against a common enemy? I hope there's someone everyone in Afghanistan hates more than us, after all that hard work we've put into avoiding civilian casualties and whatnot.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.The common enemy is usually other tribes that have shit they want or who are perceived as not having enough honor.
It's not so much hate as it is frustration, they want us out, that much is for certain. Most Afghans who aren't involved in the Insurgency or the Taliban just want things to go back to the way they were, not necessarily under the Taliban, but not under the thumb of foreigners either.
edited 28th Jun '11 11:25:15 AM by Barkey
The whole honour thing reminds me of feudal Japan... maybe they need a Tokugawa Ieyesu.
edited 28th Jun '11 11:28:47 AM by GameChainsaw
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.It's a tribal culture, basically. Tribalism and national identity don't generally go together very well, because in Tribalism, what's good for your tribe comes first, and other tribes can go whistle. For a democracy to work, there needs to be an aspect of "what's best for the country, even if it isn't what's best for me personally". We can install all the democratically elected leaders we want, but it's not going to stick.
@Maddy
Exactly. In Afghanistan there's your extended family, then there's your village, then the extended family of people you know in your village, and then any other villages that you have good relations with(And those relationships can change from good to bad and vice versa at the drop of a hat)
As many officers have found out, however, forging a friendship with a local can be very powerful indeed if they are influential and/or have a large family. You can talk to someone you've never met and say "I'm a friend of Mohammed Al Kino" and if this person is a family member of Kino's or a friend, you are by extension, instantly friends.
They are a very friendly culture once they decide they want to be friends. They aren't terribly subtle about anything though. An Afghani trying to be clever comes across to a westerner like they are communicating their intentions with a bullhorn.
^
The thing is, maybe it's not really a problem? Who are we to tell them to ditch their entire way of life since the dawn of time? Afghani's want their social ladder to stay the way it is, by and large. Who are we to say it's a problem when it's what they want and they are content with it? I wish someone in charge would perhaps throw the idea out there that not every region is compatible with Democracy, we act like everybody wants it and it's right for everyone. Nobody has ever seemed to really take the time to go "Hmm, maybe they don't particularly want Democracy?"
No, not wanting Democracy means something is broken and needs to be fixed, because everyone wants Democracy, we always know best.
edited 28th Jun '11 12:29:13 PM by Barkey
^^ No, it's the cause. The Afghani culture has been tribal for centuries. It's the root of why democracy doesn't work. Not a symptom. The cause.If it was just a symptom, we could "fix" it by putting "the right guy" in charge. But there is no "right guy", because a tribal culture is fundamentally local, not national. It doesn't matter how perfect the guy is from our viewpoint, from the viewpoint of many of the Afghanis, the big thing is going to be that he's not from their tribe, and therefore is by default suspect. Then he's going to start trying to do things that will benefit "the country" and some of those things will not benefit one tribe or another as much as they do others,and presto: there's "proof" that he's untrustworthy.
^ Your last paragraph says it very well. We assume that democracy is the perfect form of government, and try to put it in place everywhere, ignoring that it only really works with a couple of cultural constructs. It's the political equivalent of saying "loafers do everything I want them to do, therefore loafers are the best shoes, and everyone should wear loafers all the time." But loafers aren't the best shoes for ballroom dancing, or rock climbing, or sailing and just because I don't do those things doesn't mean that they're wrong and useless and no-one should do them.
edited 28th Jun '11 12:38:02 PM by Madrugada
I think the average American would be satisfied with a non-democratic Afghanistan if there were a way to secure it so that it didn't become a haven for international criminals. How do you keep a bunch of different tribal factions secure? Appoint tribal anti-terrorist watchdogs over each one? We think in terms of organizing it as a country because we don't have any better ideas. At least, I haven't heard any.
The natives want us out. We want out. You'd think that would be enough to come to some sort of agreement where we don't try to take over the region and they don't harbor people who blow up our stuff.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Afghanistan produces 92% of the world's opium, which is the main ingredient of heroin.
In addition to that, Afghanistan is also the largest producer of hashish in the world.
Without a strong central government, it's hard to see how the drug industry would not lead to institutionalised drug-related crime.
You know how there's been some chaos here and there during the US occupation? During the Taleban years, drug production was already a major industry, but it never reached the levels it did after the invasion, and the Americans have done little to stop this (which is perfectly understandable, considering how much of a mess the country and occupation is without thinking about this particular problem.)
Sure there are rumours (and some evidence, too,) of CIA involvement in various prominent drug rings in South and Central America, but I've never seen anything connecting Afghanistan's drug industry to the CIA, and personally, I don't think the Americans actually want Afghanistan to produce all that shit, it's just that there's not much that can be done in these circumstances.
edited 28th Jun '11 1:53:33 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Get hospitals to buy the stuff up. Last time I checked we were short on opium-based stuff anyway. There's a demand Afghanistan can supply.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.You could always firebomb the cropland but that won't go over well among many people.
Fight smart, not fair.

Well you can do that or we coulda just let the people the Afghans actually wanted into power. We feed a self-fulfilling prophecy of hatred. By not letting those people into power we cement all their worries that made them anti-American in the first place; that is, that we are there to take power and take their resources and not to help anyone.