Theorise: Why are we in Afghanistan?

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That a nation ( or a people ) gets the government it deserves.

Yes, that's right, George W. Bush is your just dessert!

I will pass over the bifurcation fallacy this time, only because I admire the ability to worry out the humor from even my most sourly worded posts.

TY, TY, TY <bows>

BTW, he's not my just desert, as I am not a citizen, thus not allowed to vote...

Wait, you were just praising the clarifying virtues of cynicism! Doesn't the cynic in you wonder how an Administration could keep actual proof of their many "lies" from coming out somehow, but one lone liberal journalist could somehow divine what was "going on" in NSC and Joint Chiefs meetings when no one else could?

Of course. Any assertion of fact without sufficient proof is inherently suspect.

Still, the fact that we don't know what's going on leads us to theorize on the input we're given. As the current administration has the appearance of being overly secretive, one naturally wonders what it is they're hiding... (other than those suspected terrorists down in Gitmo, of course)

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Agreed that Iraq effects the current deployment and capability in Afghanistan, but how does that go to the initial justification for being there in the first place?

James.

It doesn't. But the title of this thread is "Why are we in Afghanistan?" and we aren't out yet. In a previous post I stated that we initially went there "to oust the Taleban who were harboring Bin Laden" which I feel was a legitimate reason.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

Still, the fact that we don't know what's going on leads us to theorize on the input we're given.

Understandable, perhaps. But still rash.

I wonder if this is how conspiracy theories are born?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

Are you saying that neocons weren't the ones who formulated and implemented our Iraq policy? Are you denying that the Bush administration manipulated the truth in support of it's goal to invade Iraq? Are you claiming there is no contingency plan to take military action against Iran? Or are you just making vague and meaningless statements? Let's hear something of substance from you, if you have any to contribute.

I'm saying that whatever the underlying merits of your conclusions, they are fallaciously presented. Badly framed, in other words. In this case your arguments incorporate elements of straw man, shifting the burden of proof, ad hominem, dicto simpliciter, and non causa pro causa...and those are just the ones that jumped out at me.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Why is it that any mention of Afghanistan immediately starts people arguing that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified?

James.

For the same reason that when the doctor hits your knee in the right place with his little rubber hammer, your leg twitches....

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

It doesn't. But the title of this thread is "Why are we in Afghanistan?" and we aren't out yet. In a previous post I stated that we initially went there "to oust the Taleban who were harboring Bin Laden" which I feel was a legitimate reason.

And we did that. So why do you say that Iraq took away resources needed to "complete the mission" in Afghanistan? The mission, as you have just framed it, WAS complete. The Taliban were ousted, Bin Laden was no longer being harbored by them, we couldn't chase him where he'd gone---into another sovereign country. So what was or is the remaining mission? Just to protect the current Afghani government? That may be an affair of many, many years...

And assuming that our enemies don't oblige us by only operating in one theater at a time, ANY operations elsewhere, no matter how justified or proper, are bound to drain resources from Afghanistan. It seems to me that the alternative is "Don't do anything anywhere until we are out of Afhghanistan...which may take decades...therefore don't do anything anywhere, ever, period".

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Inquartata. The only part of Afghanistan which we have pacified is Kabul. The Taleban are still alive and kicking throughout the rest of the country and in fact are making a comeback. They have now adopted the tactics of the Iraqi insurgents, IEDs, which has resulted in an increased casualty rate for our troops. The Afghani opium crop is now the largest in the world. I wouldn't call our present situation success. I say our mission will be complete when we can leave without the country reverting back to Taliban control.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I'm saying that whatever the underlying merits of your conclusions, they are fallaciously presented. Badly framed, in other words. In this case your arguments incorporate elements of straw man, shifting the burden of proof, ad hominem, dicto simpliciter, and non causa pro causa...and those are just the ones that jumped out at me.

You need to present arguments of substance, Inquartata. I can't take you seriously if all you do is shoot pedantic spitwads from the sidelines. Present your case if you have one. If not, you are just wasting my time.

[TrainingDummy]

From what I've read, ex-Taliban members have a fair amount of power in the "legitimate" (US endorsed, lauded as a bastion of freedom, etc.) Afghani government. Basically, they defected to the Northern Alliance at some point and kept their politics with them, and then worked their way into the post- US invasion Afghani political infrastructure.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

I say our mission will be complete when we can leave without the country reverting back to Taliban control.

THAT is a valid reason. Perhaps THE valid reason.

James.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And assuming that our enemies don't oblige us by only operating in one theater at a time, ANY operations elsewhere, no matter how justified or proper, are bound to drain resources from Afghanistan. It seems to me that the alternative is "Don't do anything anywhere until we are out of Afhghanistan...which may take decades...therefore don't do anything anywhere, ever, period".

Ah, but you forget--there is a third alternative: We can leave Afghanistan. Now, today.

Thereby rendering ourselves ready to attack the next flash point that catches our fancy...Iran, perhaps?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

Inquartata. The only part of Afghanistan which we have pacified is Kabul. The Taleban are still alive and kicking throughout the rest of the country and in fact are making a comeback.

Definitional retreat. Your phrasing of "the mission" was "to oust the Taliban". That was done; they are in power nowhere. That they are "alive" is irrelevant, since you did not say that our mission was to kill them to the last man, or even to make them vanish as a force...

I say our mission will be complete when we can leave without the country reverting back to Taliban control.

Definitional retreat, as I said. This is another fallacious form of argumentation.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

You need to present arguments of substance, Inquartata.

Physician, heal thyself.

I can't take you seriously if all you do is shoot pedantic spitwads from the sidelines.

Try, try to imagine how little I care whether you "take me seriously". Or indeed what your opinion of me is in any respect whatsoever.

Present your case if you have one. If not, you are just wasting my time.

Then prepare to have a lot of your time wasted, or else add me to your "ignore" list...in which case I will just expose your hollow blusterings to the rest of the forum with you none the wiser.

Or, you could try relying less on left-wing emotional hand-wringing and more on proper reasoning. There ARE liberal posters hereabouts who manage to frame creditable arguments supporting their views rather than cobbling together collages of buzzwords and fervid phrases fallaciously presented...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Ah, but you forget--there is a third alternative: We can leave Afghanistan. Now, today.

Thereby rendering ourselves ready to attack the next flash point that catches our fancy...Iran, perhaps?

Or perhaps...Afghanistan again.

Iran doesn't worry me very much, in the sense of being a potential drain on our military resources. Their nuclear program is the real threat at this time, and it is in a fairly fragile stage of development. A few facilities destroyed, a few processes disrupted, and it would be set back many years...and possibly ended altogether, since there'd be little use in expending resources on its reconstitution knowing we'd only disrupt it again. Very like Israel's attack on the Osirak reactor effectively ended Iraq's nuclear program at the time. I cannot see any need for "boots on the ground" in Iran. There IS such a need in both Afghanistan and Iraq, though.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There IS such a need in both Afghanistan and Iraq, though.

And what "need", pray tell, would that be?

[Inquartata]

Holding territory, of course.

If you just want to destroy an installation, a cruise missile or a bombing raid will suffice. If you want to take control of and/or use that installation yourself, or interdict it permanently, you will need to occupy, guard and hold it. That means infantry.

We hold Afghanistan, or parts of it, because we want to make the place over, not just to smash it. If we left there at this point the Taliban, or some version of them, would probably retake control. Same in Iraq.

But we have no interest in taking over Iran, only in debarring it from one specific act. That can be accomplshed without invasion.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Holding territory, of course.

If you just want to destroy an installation, a cruise missile or a bombing raid will suffice. If you want to take control of and/or use that installation yourself, or interdict it permanently, you will need to occupy, guard and hold it. That means infantry.

We hold Afghanistan, or parts of it, because we want to make the place over, not just to smash it. If we left there at this point the Taliban, or some version of them, would probably retake control. Same in Iraq.

But we have no interest in taking over Iran, only in debarring it from one specific act. That can be accomplshed without invasion.

I agree with your first two statements, but don't you think we would have been able to complete the mission of pacifying Afghanistan sooner had we not decreased our commitment of forces and resources in order to invade Iraq?

Regarding your final statement, we have indeed demonstrated a long term interest in controlling Iran for strategic and economic reasons. Remember that we engineered the coup that put Palavi in power. One might quibble over the difference between "taking over" and controlling a country, but I see little practical distinction between the two. At this point I think accomplishing either would require the use of force.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

I agree with your first two statements, but don't you think we would have been able to complete the mission of pacifying Afghanistan sooner had we not decreased our commitment of forces and resources in order to invade Iraq?

No, because in that context "pacification" is IMO a matter of time and the changing of cultural norms and expectations, not of mere brute military occupation.

Unless we are contemplating an occupation like that of Germany or Japan pst-WWII, I think sheer military force had done about as much as it could do by the time Iraq rolled around. Oh, the remnants of theTaliban may have been less bold in poking their heads back up out of their holes if there was an American tank at every crossroad and a machinegun nest on every public building. But making them wait longer is not necessarily the same as pacification.

What's needed in Afghanistan now, I think, is to shore up and protect the new government and to extend and normalize democratic institutions and thinking, to give both time to mature and for a generation of Afghans to grow up benefiting from them. I'm not sure that'd be more easily done with 300,000 troops than 30,000...or 3,000. Especially since the anti-Taliban Afghan army already existed, in the form of warlord-led militias which now support or have become part of the government, instead of having to be remade as in Iraq.

As to Iran, it is unlike Iraq in that its demography suggests that it will be drawn back toward the West and greater freedom of its own acord in the long run, and that we need only make its theocracy impotent outside its own borders and wait for the increasingly restless youth to escape the thumb of the mullahs. In this respect I think it is eventually going to go the way of, say, Poland. Eventually there will simply be too much internal pressure for reform for the aging leadership to suppress. If we can keep the radical government from exporting its goals ( and NBC weapons, quite possibly ), if in short we can develop a form of workable "containment", I think eventually the Iran problem may cure itself...

This would not have worked in Iraq, where ruthless suppression had all but extinguished any sense of hope for change or confidence in the ability of the people to effect reform. In Iraq the only real prospect was for Baathist tyranny to get even worse when Saddam's sons took over rule.

[rcmatthews]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

I can't take you seriously if all you do is shoot pedantic spitwads from the sidelines.

His job is to do exactly that.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

His job is to do exactly that.

Whatever Inq's job may be, I find him much more engaging when he presents a point of view as he did in his last post. Then there is something to talk about.

Inquartata makes several valid points that I generally agree with regarding how change takes place in societies. I wonder, though, if anything less than an occupation like that of Germany and Japan can succeed in Afghanistan. I would think that the reason we were able to impose our will on those countries was that we effectively obliterated all opposition. There was no alternative for the Germans and Japanese to turn to. This will not be the case in Afghanistan as long as our presence is kept to the minimum level necessary to prevent the overthrow of Karzai's government. That being said, I question whether the cultural chasm that separates fundamentalist Afghanis and American occupiers will negate our efforts regardless of troop levels. If that is indeed the case (which has not yet been tested) then we should just declare victory and get out.