The job was to go in and find/stop the terrorist training camps which lead to the twin towers attack.

The Taliban coming to power (with a militrary victory against whoever else competes in that vacuum) will make them seem more powerful than ever (and thus more able to use nationalism to further their cause, though perhaps religion is a bigger motivating factor anyway...)

Entrenched and more powerful (or popular, cause you've got to become popular if you force another super-power out of your country, the USSR was the last one) than ever, what is to stop the Taliban from training terrorists?

i know i just answered a question with a question, i'm sorry, i'll take 20 lashing and to bed without supper.

I (hold your breath) believe that the US is partly responsible for the problems in Afghanistan to begin with. The CIA provided the Mujahideen with the tech and support to defeat the Soviets - in particular the stinger missile. when the Soviets tucked tail and ran, so too did the US influence, leaving local warlords, etc to scramble for power. No doubts loyalties were questioned all around (who sided with who)...blah blah blah...but it is very arguable that Afghanistan is the mess it is in part because of a previous power vacuum.

On the flip side, even with US and coalition forces in Afghanistan it is arguably a mess. Experts on Afghanistan point to the extremely tribal nature of the country, coupled with a culture that is not enamored with (and therefore not in need of) Western technology and lifestlye.

So....if there a real difference between the chaos of the power vacuum versus the chaos of the US invasion forces attempting to keep order? Not really...

the idea of including the Taliban is a naive notion - they don't want to be included. they are culturally opposed to being "included" in some solution forced upon them be "Christian" western powers, and thus the solution will not hold.

As it is in Iraq, where there is a desire by many for peace, the religious/cultural bias against the western influence is such that there will not be a peace even if a "stable" government and military is installed. Of course...you could argue that in parts of Los Angeles, Detroit, New york, Miami there is no peace, either because of cultural and political differences...It may be that a certain amount of violence and unrest is simply a part of the human condition in these areas...

@Iraq, I think Iraq is different - having a history of being a powerful stable nation they are more likely adapt well to being a stable nation with a sense of 'nationhood'; Plus natural resources should lead them to being a relatively prosperous nation.

All in all i think the likelyhood of Iraq becoming relatively independant is much higher; cultural issues aside, Iraq is a nation which - even if divided into three/four federal areas - is likely to Iraq-ify whatever solution the 'coalition' forces leave it.

In fact the US would be much better placed to withdraw from Iraq, a civil war might ensue but stability wouldn't take too long to return (there might be an issue with exported oil being limited while the civil war was fought, but more importantly the US wouldn't know who would come out on top and they would likely not be pro-US in their views... which tends to be a problem for trade...)

I don't disagree about Iraq, orathaic, re civil war, whatever. But I also think that whatever the case - stay, go, whatever - there will be violence. Muslim factions blowing each other up, killing Kurds, whatever. it's just the nature of things...LIKE...the Crips and the Bloods in LA, or whoever the fuck is killing people on a nightly basis in Detroit, etc.

But what about Afghanistan? See any hope there? Stay OR go?

Any other thoughts on this?

@Flashman

sorry, rather forgot about this one. Some quick thoughts which I hope help you win your competition.

The realpolitik is:
- Taliban are strong on the ground and attract much sympathy from local populace (which is why they rose to power after the soviets left)
- the land & opposition is not well suited to a modern army (as the Soviets found) particularly those that are sensitive to casualty numbers (NATO)
- Kharzei is a huge disappointment and I don't see him getting any better (from Western perspective) + his chances of assassination must be high
- any replacement will either be a puppet of the US (so no local support) or even more determined to keep the locals sweet because he knows that the West will pull out sooner rather than later
- Western forces can only "hold the ring" whilst good civilian society grows but this is very unfertile soil for that to happen quickly
- throwing money at local strongmen might give a figleaf of peace during which to ship out
- presence of Western forces in a muslim society just makes the whole West vs Arabs situation worse

In short, we cannot make it better by being there so it is better to get out ASAP. There will be people killed but frankly it is better that Afghans are killing each other rather than NATO killing Afghans or vice versa.

Sadly, Afghanistan is going to be a harsh, violent place to live for a long time; but that is nothing new.

Thanks. Again you have come up to bat and provided useful ideas/info.

Best option against the Taliban: arm the warlords (who don't like being told what to do by anyone), covert operations & drones

Chalk it up as another fail for diplomacy by force.

That is a rather interesting counter-model to just having withdrawal.

I am preparing two teams for a debating comp in the Czech Republic (August) and this will be one of their prepared motions. As my teams are from HK, getting them up to speed on the geopolitics is a challenge. Your comments here and in other threads are very helpful.

At the risk of sounding like an old hippie...there isn't a way to peace, peace is the way.

We have to trust the citizens of a country to govern their own country, there are some terible things happening in the world and particularly Afgan, but governance cannot be imposed it has to come from within. There may be a blood bath whilst the country gets to a stable state, but mothers and fathers generally want to live in peace and have a chan ce to prosper. Leave them alone and this view will prevail.

We should concern ourselves more with fighting for democracy at home and not in foreign lands.

I was called a hippy in another thread, how strange that the word appears here too! Well, I can dig that man (as a real child of the sixties).

Peace is the way is an entirely relevant and sensible approach to the problem.

Best option against the Taliban: arm the warlords

ARM THE WARLORDS

Ahem, but what exactly caused the whole mess in Afghanistan in the first place?

Oh, right... Jimmy Carter gave Stingers to the Afghans. Hmm.

Well, I'm sure it'll work if we try it again, right?

Afghanistan is a lost cause. Why throw money and people at lost causes?

As to whether they will train terrorists, how hard do you think it is to train a terrorist? It would seem to me to be fairly easy to train terrorists on any 25 acre property, anywhere in the world.

All the pictures I have ever seen of terrorist training camps could be reproduced with a rundown shack, a few orange boxes and the odd moth-eaten net or two.

Throw in AK47's and masks and all you then need is someone with a loud voice and a distinct hatred from his fellow man to shout orders.

25 acres seems a bit on the generous side Bob.

Hey, I'm a generous guy.

@SirBayer: the warlords did a pretty good job of kicking the Russians out and I am sure that they can kick the terrorists out to perhaps o if given the right tools and incentives. Cost in western money & lives undoubtedly less and probably less "collateral damage" too. Cynical perhaps but I give it more chance of success than the current approach.

@Maniac: I agree with you 100%. We cannot impose "our" model of democracy on others, they must find their own.

@Sir Bayer: I think the cause of the whole mess was invading Iraq the first time. It is the resulting presence of western troops in Saudi that got the Muslim world really stirred up and gave OBL a slew of recruits and support. The Taliban just provided a suitable training ground.

Imagine if GW1 had been completed: no Saddam, leave the Baath to look after the country, US & allies leave the region. I think 9/11 would not have happened.

^quoting Diplomat 61, forgot to mention that^

Oh, wow, that went through way after it should've. :<

Anyway, I'm just not sure I agree with your solution. Sure we can send 'em money, but if we're not going to get involved, then why should the people of the United States care? And if we don't care, and if the Afghans feel abandoned by us and our forces, aren't they going to hate us more? And if they do, aren't they going to come back the same way they did last time?

It just seems like we're suggesting exactly what we did before: Leave them to their own devices. And if we don't learn from what happened last time, there's no reason to believe it won't again.

I'd say that if we stop bombing the shit out of people's grandma's, they're probably going to hate us less.

@Bob - maybe we should starting bombing people's mother-in-laws to gain some friends?

@flashman - glad to see some hippies on here playing war games.

@Diplomat61 - No one has ever agreed with me 100% before, you now have me questioning myself.

Well if NATO isn't around attracting IEDs and generally bringing grief to the neighbourhood I suspect a lot of Afghans will breathe a sigh of relief. Sending money to the warlords is a way to ensure that the terrorists don't come back, which seems like something the people of the US should care about. Things went wrong last time when the Russians had gone and we STOPPED giving them money.

@Maniac: I am sure that your enquiries will absolve yourself of blame

"And if they do, aren't they going to come back the same way they did last time?"

em, i think the taliban just refused to shut down these religious camps (which were being used for terrorist training purposes) because they were a running religious fundamentalist country.

They would have refused to share intelligence and implement arrest warrents if those were issued; being a sovereign nation this isn't unexpected.

Helping them build a nation which has something to be lost by opposing the wishes of the international community ('whatever that happens to be') would make them more open to diplomacy (to get them to agree to extradition treaties and perhaps join interpol)

Of course this will require money, and peace. I would recommend that investment be made in the infrastructure of the country to build their economy into something worth protecting.

@Orathaic: I understand the theory of nation building and rather like it (apart from my liberal principles shouting: "let them decide for themselves"), however the problem in this case is that I do not see voters in NATO countries putting up with the cost in lives for long enough for this to happen. As I understand it the amount of actual infrastructure building being done is practically nil so it will take an age to get to the kind of level that would tip the balance.

As you rightly point out the Taliban are not going to play ball with the West, there is nothing we can give them that they want. The warlords are a different story, if you read up some of the accounts of the covert war against the Soviets you will find that these guys are basically only interested in power in their own region, which they get through guns & money. Left to their own devices they will grow opium to acquire these things, which we probably don't want, but we do want "no terrorist training camps" so ....

Orathaic-

I don't really think the Talibs were well placed to implement the demands, given that foreign mujjes were about a quarter of the Taliban's ability to bring force upon a particular area, and they were pretty widely loathed. As they will be when they run the country again. Because, let's face it, the Talibs are going to wind up winning. Let's let them be Pakistan's problem, not ours. As a side benefit, we get to tell Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan's unsavory leadership to take a flying leap, too, if we're not trying to supply an ongoing war in Afghanistan.

Does anyone seriously consider this a winnable war? I suspect that the biggest problem preventing withdrawal from Afghanistan at the moment is how to do it with a modicum of face saving. To which I say "bollocks"; in this context face-saving is is code for old men worried about their "legacy" sending young men to die.

I am not so naive to think that the warlords won't be doing the same but frankly I prefer "their" young men dying to "ours".

and I should say young men & women

A few older men as well.

also true.

My point is that the people making the decisions do so at low risk to themselves. There is something to be said for kings leading their troops into battle.

"My kingdom for a horse"?