Afghanistan Peace Talks

It's always been that way. We call them AO's or Area of Operation. From there it is broken down even further, all the way to the team or company level. Depending on what you do.

 

I think he means politically. Letting the tribal warlords have autonomy for their sphere rather than trying to centralize power.

 

And we are still in agreement. It shouldn't be easy to go to war. I don't necessarily agree with the way war is covered today, but the go-no go decision should be weighed heavily before committing.

 

You are correct.

And I'm not sure that's feasible. I genuinely don't know enough about the region. I just can tell you that it doesn't seem that a centralized government in the answer.

 

A lot of times it feels like in these rebuilding jobs we try and make a country be a modern westernized nation-state. Afghanistan isn't modern. It isn't westernized. It will never be mistaken for such. So why are we trying to turn it into a centralized democracy?

 

3 years ago I would have still argued it could have been done. Now, I am convinced it can't.

 

So how do we "politically" secure this country without boots on the ground? How do we disrupt an insurgency "politically"?

Leave it up to the warlords to decide the fate of their province? How would that benefit the country as a whole? I believe that's the point, a free afghanistan. The ANA are the Afghan National Army....National not province.

 

I'm not saying take the boots off the ground. What I am saying is that we quit trying to put together a centralized Afgan government and work to try to do stuff provincially and form smaller states.

 

I'm not saying take the boots off the ground. What I am saying is that we quit trying to put together a centralized Afgan government and work to try to do stuff provincially and form smaller states.

 

That's what is happening right now. The supporting the warlord thing has been done. How else are we to be invited into the community? We don't just tell everyone to get out of the way, here we come. You need to be accepted by the people of the region. So many people don't know know what the [uck fay] is going on over here. They just throw out assumptions that they think are facts. I normally don't talk about such matters for obvious reasons. The fact that we are pulling thousands and thousands of troops in a matter of months has me concerned.

 

I agree with you that this is a major mistake.

I also said I don't know that much about the situation.

I'm just saying that instead of trying to create one unified Afgan government, perhaps the idea of creating smaller nations based on the tribes might be floated out there.

Sorry to have a thought and comment on something I can't write a doctoral thesis about. I'll make a note of that for the future.

 

I wasn't talking about you Card. I appreciate the input given. I was talking about the other site. I would never try to have a convo about this with those idiots. Would be banned on the first page. Pisses me off just thinking about it. Sorry about that, Ha!

 

No worries.

My overall guess is that from the top down, we really had no idea how difficult this was going to be when we started and severely underestimated it.

 

What does a free Afghanistan mean to you? What does a free Afghanistan mean to the average Afghani? I imagine two vastly different things.

Again, you refer to a "country as a whole." Country does not equal nation-state. That's two different things. Putting "National" in the title of an army principly representing Kabul doesn't it make it national.

 

As far as dealing with insurgencies and terrorist camps "politically," I am not saying there is a solution. I don't think there is. I think hilljack backwards religious fundamentalists are going to keep on keepin' on. It's just a matter of us figuring out how far we are willing to go to make them stop. Because we can't change them ourselves.

 

You literally have to kill them all, or at least the overwhelming majority.

 

I'm with you on this one IPorange. I am sick of sending the best military in the world over to nation build while the taxpayers of today and the future foot the bill. When attacked or challenged go over, take care of business, and come home. Let them rebuild their own POS country with what's left over with the knowledge that if there is a next time every last living thing will be gone.

 

We can't own the moral high horse and play Rome at the same time, which is what is suggested when it is said that we simply go in, kick ass and pull out.

 

The solution was lost ten years ago when we decided that an invasion of a country already reduced to rubble, but with a long history of guerrilla insurgency, was the way to go. I watched an interview of Bush reflecting upon 9-11 and the aftermath a few months ago and was struck by how he kept referring to "America at war", "I saw a war zone", "I realized I was a wartime president", etc. We actually had special forces on the ground very quickly after 9-11 that were effective, but had a leader intent on seeing to his legacy within American history. So, we treat the situation as an actual act of war and try to fight it as such, to moderate effect, at best.

Now we are left with no real "solutions". You can't start anything within a country that isn't desired or built at the grassroots level by the locals. We can try and bang our head against the wall to the end of time, but I don't see a whole lot of sense in doing so.

 

exactly. Nor can we expect to hold any sort of support from foreign countries if this is our tactic. It's laughable when people try to hold that stand.