Gyroscopic Investing

My original understanding was that it was to get Osama bin Laden, but then after they got him the Afghanistan mess just kept rolling on.

Does anyone know what the U.S. is trying to accomplish over there?

How would we know when we're done?

It just seems like a shockingly pointless exercise, especially considering that many people in Afghanistan have never even heard of 9/11, and from their perspective we're just an occupying force that needs to be harassed until we get tired and leave.

I don't think people fully grasp just what a broken society Afghanistan is and how very far it is from being capable of supporting a stable representative government.  Rural Afghanistan just looks to me like some nice scenery populated by borderline insane Islamic hillbillies who like getting high and shooting their rifles.  What a stupid place to try to impose democracy through force.

The true mission in Afghanistan is probably to have a base to launch operations in the event that Pakistan descends into civil war (or to help prevent a radical Islamic revolution in the first place), but I don't recall the American people ever being told that was the real reason we are there.

MediumTex wrote: My original understanding was that it was to get Osama bin Laden, but then after they got him the Afghanistan mess just kept rolling on.

Does anyone know what the U.S. is trying to accomplish over there?

How would we know when we're done?

It just seems like a shockingly pointless exercise, especially considering that many people in Afghanistan have never even heard of 9/11, and from their perspective we're just an occupying force that needs to be harassed until we get tired and leave.

I don't think people fully grasp just what a broken society Afghanistan is and how very far it is from being capable of supporting a stable representative government.  Rural Afghanistan just looks to me like some nice scenery populated by borderline insane Islamic hillbillies who like getting high and shooting their rifles.  What a stupid place to try to impose democracy through force.

The true mission in Afghanistan is probably to have a base to launch operations in the event that Pakistan descends into civil war (or to help prevent a radical Islamic revolution in the first place), but I don't recall the American people ever being told that was the real reason we are there.

I also thought we were going there to get bin Laden.  I hear they have a big supply of Lithium.  The proximity to Pakistan is also noteworthy.

I have to ask the question, is any place a good place to try to impose democracy through force?

I think all of these same questions apply to every US foreign mission.  A lot of people make a lot of money on war.

It's an excellent question. Now that Bin Laden is dead, I think we're nation-building. 

The Russians did warn us about Afghanistan.

dualstow wrote: It's an excellent question. Now that Bin Laden is dead, I think we're nation-building. 

Nation building in Afghanistan is like laying fiber optic cable for the Flintstones.

I love the Orwellian aspect of calling people "insurgents" who are defending their own country from foreign occupation.

Probably to keep the Taliban from reforming and taking over Afghanistan to reestablish a base for terrorism as did Al Qaeda.  Also, to keep the Taliban from perhaps, in some way, exerting influence in Pakistan and gaining access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.  But then we read in the news last week that we've released a number of Taliban prisoners / detainees.  Are we really so naive to think that they won't once again take up arms to kill American military personnel? 

Bob wrote: Probably to keep the Taliban from reforming and taking over Afghanistan to reestablish a base for terrorism as did Al Qaeda.  Also, to keep the Taliban from perhaps, in some way, exerting influence in Pakistan and gaining access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.   But then we read in the news last week that we've released a number of Taliban prisoners / detainees.  Are we really so naive to think that they won't once again take up arms to kill American military personnel? 

I would say, though, that the U.S.'s 11 year campaign in Afghanistan has probably strengthened the Taliban immeasurably, since having a foreign enemy virtually always galvanizes domestic groups that might otherwise fracture.

BTW, what is the Taliban anyway?  Is it a single group with interests that are perfectly aligned, or is it a loosely organized group of people who probably have all sorts of internal disagreements?

I would say that after 11 years, we've probably done about all the good that we can do.  Ultimately, if a goup of people don't like us, it may be that we're just going to have to let them not like us.  What you often find, however, is that once you leave a group of people alone, sometimes they can experience a lot more positive change than they ever would have while fighting you.  Look at Vietnam--the French and U.S. engaged in military action there for decades trying to make them be more like us before finally giving up and coming home.  Guess what happened only a few years after we left?  They decided they liked western goods and wanted to enter into trading agreements, and what has unfolded since has been increasing prosperity and peace that the French and U.S. militaries never came close to achieving.

It's the same story in Russia.  IMHO, capitalism did a lot more to end the Soviet Union than democracy did.

I think that Obama blew a golden opportunity after bin Laden's death.  He could have announced then that the mission in Afghanistan had been completed and an Afghanistan troop drawdown would start immediately.  This would have allowed him to bring the troops home with honor and a plausible declaration of victory in the longest war in our nation's history.  Instead, we are still there a year later, chasing around ghosts while the occupied population is engaging in acts of resistance that are predictably getting more and more sophisticated.

MediumTex wrote: I don't think people fully grasp just what a broken society Afghanistan is and how very far it is from being capable of supporting a stable representative government.  Rural Afghanistan just looks to me like some nice scenery populated by borderline insane Islamic hillbillies who like getting high and shooting their rifles.  What a stupid place to try to impose democracy through force.

You mean, like this?  Here we see John Rambo playing a leisurely game of goat polo with the Taliban...

[align=center][/align]

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I don't think people fully grasp just what a broken society Afghanistan is and how very far it is from being capable of supporting a stable representative government.  Rural Afghanistan just looks to me like some nice scenery populated by borderline insane Islamic hillbillies who like getting high and shooting their rifles.  What a stupid place to try to impose democracy through force.

You mean, like this?  Here we see John Rambo playing a leisurely game of goat polo with the Taliban...

[align=center][/align]

Ah yes, back in the days when the Taliban were the good guys and the Russians were the bad guys.

Yes, back before the Taliban aligned with Bin Laden and allowed him sanctuary while he killed thousands of innocent Americans.

Reub wrote: Yes, back before the Taliban aligned with Bin Laden and allowed him sanctuary while he killed thousands of innocent Americans.

Wait a second, bin Laden was a U.S. ally back then in the battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were both big U.S. allies in the 1980s.

I think it's starting to resemble the final years of Vietnam, long after the advice to "declare victory and go home" was ignored. I hear many of the same arguments. If we pull out now we'll lose the respect of the world, our soldiers will have died in vain, and those who sided with us against the Taliban will suffer reprisals, etc., etc. Somebody should just take the trouble to write these all down and be done with it so they can be pulled out and recited every time we get into the same mess (alternatively you could use it count the cost before starting a war but that doesn't seem to be likely).

Marking the anniversary of the Kent State shootings last weekend I was musing about one thing that was entirely different this time around. In 1970 the widening of the war into Cambodia resulted in massive protests on college campuses (even though the war was already being secretly fought there for a long time). Today there is nary a peep from a protester as Obama has done virtually the same thing in Pakistan as well as sending troops into even more countries. Bob Dylan was right, the times they were a changin', just not in the direction I think he meant.

Meanwhile, back to Afghanistan, I think you can't underestimate as a simple reason for our continued presence the power and influence of the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned about. War is good business for them and with little protest at home they probably would like to see it go on as long as possible.

I think the protests (or lack thereof) has more to do with the political party of the commander in chief than it does the spread of any war.  Plenty of protests when Bush was president, and hardly any (at least, that you hear much of) now.

Xan wrote: I think the protests (or lack thereof) has more to do with the political party of the commander in chief than it does the spread of any war.  Plenty of protests when Bush was president, and hardly any (at least, that you hear much of) now.

You don't remember, "Hey Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"?

[align=center][/align]

Old dreams never really go out of fashion.

jackh wrote:You don't remember, "Hey Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"?

I have to confess I don't....  But I wasn't born until 1981.

Xan wrote:

jackh wrote:You don't remember, "Hey Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"?

I have to confess I don't....  But I wasn't born until 1981.

Well then I have both an advantage and a disadvantage in this discourse. The advantage is more historical knowledge to draw upon even though we got all our news from only 3 sources back then (ABC, CBS, NBC). And there were no remotes to click between the 3. You had to get up and change the channel. Oh the hardship! But we were better for it.

The disadvantage is I'll be dead sooner.

I'm referring to a chant of Anti-war protesters. I think if you watch Forrest Gump it will enlighten you. If I'm recalling correctly the antiwar protester that beat up Jenny referred to the "lying bastard Johnson" as an excuse. Johnson was a Democrat, not a Republican.

And for the record, they didn't just hold up signs and protest. THEY BURNT DOWN ROTC BUILDINGS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES! It was an unprecedented time in American History that the history books will probably gloss over.

A similar chant today would be "Hey, Hey, Barack Hussein, how many children have you slain?"

I don't think we'll be hearing that any time soon and I think this partially proves your conclusion that it is based on political ideology though it is much deeper than that.

Xan wrote: I think the protests (or lack thereof) has more to do with the political party of the commander in chief than it does the spread of any war.  Plenty of protests when Bush was president, and hardly any (at least, that you hear much of) now.

I assume you are referring the Nobel Peace Prize winner, right?

Reub wrote: Yes, back before the Taliban aligned with Bin Laden and allowed him sanctuary while he killed thousands of innocent Americans.

Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of Americans?  Really?  He wasn't behind the attacks on the twin World Trade Center towers.  The responsible ringleader, whose name I cannot pronounce or spell, has already been arrested, prosecuted and is serving a lengthy prison term.  What an inconvenient truth!

If we're going to be all haughty and execute certain religious moral authorities just due to their vocalized beliefs instead of actual criminal actions, then they are just as innocent as the innocent Americans alleged killed by them.  What a slippy slope of Orwellian thought-crime we have here!

MG

jackh wrote:

Xan wrote: I think the protests (or lack thereof) has more to do with the political party of the commander in chief than it does the spread of any war.  Plenty of protests when Bush was president, and hardly any (at least, that you hear much of) now.

You don't remember, "Hey Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"?

Yes, I find that curious myself!

MachineGhost wrote:

Reub wrote: Yes, back before the Taliban aligned with Bin Laden and allowed him sanctuary while he killed thousands of innocent Americans.

Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of Americans?  Really?  He wasn't behind the attacks on the twin World Trade Center towers.  The responsible ringleader, whose name I cannot pronounce or spell, has already been arrested, prosecuted and is serving a lengthy prison term.  What an inconvenient truth!

If we're going to be all haughty and execute certain religious moral authorities just due to their vocalized beliefs instead of actual criminal actions, then they are just as innocent as the innocent Americans alleged killed by them.  What a slippy slope of Orwellian thought-crime we have here!

MG

He wasn't? Really??

Reub wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Reub wrote: Yes, back before the Taliban aligned with Bin Laden and allowed him sanctuary while he killed thousands of innocent Americans.

Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of Americans?  Really?  He wasn't behind the attacks on the twin World Trade Center towers.  The responsible ringleader, whose name I cannot pronounce or spell, has already been arrested, prosecuted and is serving a lengthy prison term.  What an inconvenient truth!

If we're going to be all haughty and execute certain religious moral authorities just due to their vocalized beliefs instead of actual criminal actions, then they are just as innocent as the innocent Americans alleged killed by them.  What a slippy slope of Orwellian thought-crime we have here!

MG

He wasn't? Really??

I think that Osama bin Laden was kind of like the Charles Manson of Al Qaeda.

He didn't actually do any killing, he just provided the intellectual framework for the killing and let others do the dirty work.

There are also interesting parallels between Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh.  Both were highly intelligent men with good tactical minds who were first allies of the U.S. government (bin Laden in the 1980s in Afghanistan and McVeigh in the U.S. Army) who later basically signed their own death warrants by challenging the U.S. government by creating a civilian body count over some vague grievances.

MediumTex wrote:

Reub wrote: Yes, back before the Taliban aligned with Bin Laden and allowed him sanctuary while he killed thousands of innocent Americans.

Wait a second, bin Laden was a U.S. ally back then in the battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were both big U.S. allies in the 1980s.

Interesting movie to watch in this respect: Charlie Wilson's War

See also Wikipedia on Charlie Wilson's War:

Charlie Wilson's War is a 2007 American biographical comedy drama film, recounting the true story of U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX) who partnered with "bare knuckle attitude" CIA operative Gust Avrakotos to launch Operation Cyclone, a program to organize and support the Afghan mujahideen in their resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Charlie follows Gust's guidance to seek support for post-Soviet occupation Afghanistan, but finds almost no enthusiasm in the U.S. government for even the modest measures he proposes. The film ends with Charlie receiving a major commendation for the support of the U.S. clandestine services, but his pride is tempered by his fears of what unintended consequences his secret efforts could yield in the future and the implications of U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan.

I guess US govt thought "what could possibly go wrong?"...