http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/a9×4f/so_are_we_just_gonna_abandon_afghans_now/

There is a reason why Afghanistan has never been conquered by a foreign power going back to Alexander the Great. The terrain is ideally suited to guerilla warfare. How can NATO troops distinguish friend from foe? They can’t. An Afghan may one day be a friend, but the next day a foe because the Taliban came along and paid him three times what the government offers to fight for them.

Even if NATO forces adopted the standard military formula for pacifying an occupied country and sent 500,000 troops to Afghanistan — which they can’t — they still would fail.

Afghanistan is tribal. There’s no loyalty to the corrupt central government, especially when it is unrepresentative of the ethnic makeup of the country — overwhelmingly controlled by Tajik drug warlords when the majority of Afghans is Pashtun. Family/tribal ties and cash rule the day. That is why there is a problem with the Afghan Army maintaining its troop levels. Recruits get tired or a more attractive offer from somewhere else and regularly quit. Training becomes never-ending.

Speaking of tribal ties, these span the Afghan-Pakistan border. So if those opposed to the Tajik drug warlords and their NATO allies are defeated in battle, they just simply disappear into anonymity amongst their brethren in the countryside or hop across the border to hide amongst their compatriots in the Northwest Frontier Province, over which the Pakistani government has always had a tenuous hold.

What to do? Is NATO going to invade Pakistan, like the US invaded Cambodia? No. Pakistan is an ally and has a nuclear weapon. Pakistan will co-operate with the US to the extent that it can, but it isn’t in a position to give the Americans bin Laden’s head on a platter. They certainly won’t give the US carte blanche to operate freely and openly in Pakistan. That would be fatal for the Pakistani government as the people wouldn’t stand for it.

So where does that leave us?

NATO forces don’t have enough troops to pacify the country, nor do they have the means or public support to send enough to do so. The Hamid Karzai government is illegitimate and hopelessly corrupt. Like the Diem government of South Vietnam, it will never govern Afghanistan without the backing of Western military forces because, for the reasons previously mentioned, it will never be strong enough.

However, that’s not to say the main reason we pull out is because we are incapable of doing the job. The reasons for being there in the beginning are extremely dubious.

If Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are such a threat to our security, why did the US invade Iraq and redeploy significant forces from Afghanistan? Weapons inspectors destroyed Saddam Hussein’s capability for developing weapons of mass destruction, a capability that was given to Saddam by the United States and its allies during the 1980s.

Why is NATO now fighting the Taliban when they never attacked any Western country? Now, the mission has changed and we’ve involved ourselves in one side of a long-simmering civil war, one that has been going on since the Russians left. Some people say that if the Taliban return to power they will invite Al Qaeda back in. That is about as likely as the Domino Theory was applied to Vietnam — seeing a unified radical Muslim monolith just as Ho Chi Minh was seen to be part of a communist bloc with China and the Soviet Union. The Taliban’s goals are not the same as Al Qaeda’s. Inviting Al Qaeda back into Afghanistan at this point would actually be detrimental to the interests of the Taliban.

Another excuse we’re given for being there is to protect human rights, particularly that of women. If that’s the case, why aren’t we invading other traditional Muslim countries that treat women similarly as the Taliban, such as Saudi Arabia? Why aren’t we invading Sudan over the genocide in Darfur? What about Burma, Zimbabwe, or North Korea? This argument simply doesn’t wash. It’s a rationale made up after the fact when the previous excuses are shown to be spurious at best.

And when it comes to this point, the arguments in favour of continuing in the quagmire become ever thinner:

* Talk to the people who really know what’s going on, those on the ground — the view is very limited to the soldier on the ground, they don’t see the big picture; if they did, morale would likely plummet.

* Our troops want to go there, they are doing good — that may very well be true at an individual level, but there is no overall progress; opium production has soared and a growing number of Afghans see NATO forces as deadly occupiers, killing a growing number of innocent civilians.

* Support our troops — that doesn’t mean we have to support the Harper government’s policies.

* We don’t cut and run — that’s a loaded phrase without substance; you don’t keep doing something that is failing or wrong; that’s a definition of insanity.

Afghanistan is currently a basket case because foreign powers have been continuously messing with it since the Soviet invasion. The ultimate solution will be a political one of the Afghans’ own making. As when the Americans left Vietnam, a civil war will undoubtedly continue before some sort of equilibrium is established. Then again, like Somalia, maybe it won’t. In any event, there won’t be any radical Muslims invading Canada. The best they can do is engage in terrorism. To put that into perspective, more people die in a year from traffic accidents.

Headline: A clean Afghan handover is a long way from reality.

Sub-title: Corruption and incompetence make NATO’s exit strategy look more like a pipe dream.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-clean-afghan-handover-is-a-long-way-from-reality/article1367088/

http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-07_e.htm

“We are stuck between two enemies — the occupation forces killing innocent civilians, and the Taliban and warlords. Many people say that if the troops leave Afghanistan, civil war will happen. But we have a civil war now. As long as the U.S. and NATO are here, the civil war will continue because they are supporting the government and the warlords. If they end the occupation of my country then we, the true democrats of Afghanistan, will be fighting one enemy instead of two.”

I often, often wonder what Canada would be like today, if Riel had been treated better. After all, British troops from Ottawa invaded HIS territory …

and I think it’s wise to remember that things went downhill from there.

And really … isn’t this the old Cold War ticket-to-invade or blockade, or make their lives difficult any way we could, if a nation decides to try another way (right or wrong)?

Here’s a thought, Harv: why not leave Afghanistan to the Afghans who have already proven themselves to be dauntless in defense of their own territory?

One last question: doesn’t the UN Charter specify it as a war crime, to invade another country?

(Response: The Russians were not chasing Al Qaeda. As far as leaving Afghans to work it out … sure, we could just bomb the hell out of Al Qaeda camps with cruise missiles when they set them up again … and just abandon the kids, the women, the gays, people speaking out for rights and freedom to the brutal warlords and the Taliban .. and watch the terror/blood flow there again. But we would never have the right again to ever hold those touchy-feely demos we love here so much, where people and their kids light candles, make empty speeches, sing We Shall Overcome and then go to Tim Hortons, thinking they’ve made the world better. h.o)

HOW is this going to warm the hearts of those whose hearts we need to “win?” It won’t, it can’t. We’re just creating the next 3 generations of terrorists! Osama Bin Laden stated within hours that al-Qaida was not a part of this attack, and past history shows that he was extremely quick to claim his own actions.

Still, the one thing that struck me as odd as I watched those towers fall, and they were already starting on the “terrorism” track…what is the purpose of terrorism? To strike unholy fear into the hearts of a nation, to kill the maximum number using a minimum amount of resources. So why would they strike at an hour when so few were in the buildings, and on the street? One or two hours later, the buildings would have been full (about 50,000)…and the streets would have been teeming with many thousands more. Now that, is something a real terrorist would salivate over.

The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11…this war was planned before then. There are documents proving that. Just one of many sites showing the plans were already made, just waiting implementation when circumstances were right: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

That said, I’d like to see every terrorist male on the planet given a sex-change – then be sent to live in Afghanistan. That might actually have a deterrent effect – nothing else will.

(Response: “SO MANY AFGHAN WOMEN” prefer living under Afghan rule. Seen a poll on that? But I have seen MANHY happy faces of young girls going to school, learning, and actually having hope for jobs,careers for the first time in their lives. And by the way, so many German women apparently also preferred living under the Nazis from 1939-45. But after they knew freedom, almost none, I’m sure, would ever want to go back. Altrhough I suspect you’d keep quoting the ones who would! Just not sure why. h.o)

A woman among warlords: The extraordinary story of an Afghan who dared to raise her voice.

It’s written by Malalai Joya, an elected MP under Afghan president Karzai … a woman MP who was expelled for … um, er … to quote H.O., “refusing to do/live/dress exactly the way THEY [meaning Karzai, in this case] say they must … ”

http://thetyee.ca/Books/2009/11/16/MalalaiJoyaCdnTour/

And Harvey … how can we, in Canada achieve the impossible task of invading and modifying Afghanistan … the French couldn’t do it … the British couldn’t do it (when those two nations were powerful military nations situated a lot closer to Afghanistan than we are) …

and now you advocate that we must fulfill George W. Bush’s apocalyptic vision? Don’t be cruel: you know that the USA (even with our help) can’t do it either. Clausewitz said it clearly: Don’t engage in a war if you don’t know how to escape from it. Or, one might add, how to win it.

PS. Did you notice how the argument you use against “Sunshine Coast Girl” is the same old argument that was rolled out against communism during the Cold War? Gotta fight them over THERE or we’ll have to fight them HERE. Bizzaro.

Btw, Sunshine Coast Girl deserved a much more intelligent response to her comments. You really went over the line, there … closer to bullying than it rational debate, if you ask me.

(Response: The primary goal was not and is not Afghasnistan …it is terrorism ..and Afghanistan , under the Taliban, is where Al Qaeda was welcomed, supported and given a free hand to plan, organize it’s terrorist attacks throughout the world. I’ve already written about Joya in response to other comments. What I really don’t understand is why so many women are so soft on the Taliban, who used violence and terror to subjugate Afghans (and ESPECIALLY women) and Al Qaeda who, if you refused to accept Islam and wear the Burkha, would kill you right now if they could. h.o. )