h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A good question was asked the other day - why are we there? Although this may be a tad UK-Centric, it's important to remember that over forty countries are in the Coalition.

I think the answer to the question is constantly changing. The initial aims of the war were achieved within weeks - depose the Taliban. This was accomplished largely by Afghans themselves. The next phase, supporting redevelopment, is where things started to go wrong.

But, we are where we are. The question is, where do we go from here?

Do we pull out and allow Afghanistan to return to Taliban control?
Do we continue as is and risk the Taliban turning on Pakistan? (a nuclear armed Taliban is something to be really scared of imo)
Or do we somehow deploy enough troops to do the job properly, secure the borders and rebuild the country?

Do we invite Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and even India to be part of the solution?

"The next phase, supporting redevelopment, is where things started to go wrong."

I think that statement ignores one or two things.

Things started to go wrong for the deployment when focus shifted to Iraq.
Redevelopment wasn't a cause of things going wrong it was a up before it began, a symptom of the empty promises, corruption and white elephant poo that is this kind of international aid.

"Do we pull out and allow Afghanistan to return to Taliban control?"

Should we? No. Will we? Quite possibly.

"Do we continue as is and risk the Taliban turning on Pakistan?"

It's possibly more likely the other way about.

"(a nuclear armed Taliban is something to be really scared of imo)"

There are 4 groups that can take power in Pakistan, the corrupt military, the corrupt politicians, the corrupt Islamists or the corrupt judiciary.
Of those, only 2 can hold that power effectively, the Islamist or the military, the military are out... and there's a vacuum.

"Or do we somehow deploy enough troops to do the job properly, secure the borders and rebuild the country?"

There isn't the money or will for that, it was spent in the dust in Iraq.

"Do we invite Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and even India to be part of the solution?"

Pakistan is too weak.
Iran has too much power already.
India is as involved as is can be given how upsetting the previous two find that.
The other two go where the money is being nasty little dictatorships.

Oh, and "I ALWAYS KNEW IT WOULD BE LIKE THIS" about sums up the rant I neatly avoided going into about the run up to invading Iraq and UK involvement there.

*just noticed that this is The Forum*

Nice to see the forum being used again

It's a funny thing...

"Do we pull out and allow Afghanistan to return to Taliban control?"

No, that would be and an abandonment of a lot of people we've promised to help.

"Do we continue as is and risk the Taliban turning on Pakistan?"

I doubt the Taliban will turn on Pakistan as a whole and even if they did I wouldn't fancy their chances. What they do have the potential to do is essentially take parts of northern Pakistan from out of the control of the Pakistani government.

"(a nuclear armed Taliban is something to be really scared of imo)"

It is. It's also supremely unlikely and, for that reason, not worth getting scared about. I don't see the Taliban being able to militarily threaten Pakistan proper. Also, don't forget that Pakistan recently elected a centre-left political party with a strongly anti-Islamist tendency. It's not a country about to fall to the religious far-right even if they are very noisy over there.

"Or do we somehow deploy enough troops to do the job properly, secure the borders and rebuild the country?"

I don't think it's just about more troops. Take Iraq, despite all the talk of the "troop surge" much of what made a difference was a change in tactics and a change in the way US forces dealt with the Iraqis. What's probably needed in Afghanistan is a change of tac. Obama's only been in power a few months and he's made Afghanistan a priority; give the man a chance.

>Do we invite Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and even India to be part of the solution?

Pakistan has a problem with violent Islamists already; having Pakistani troops fight the Taliban will inflame them. Also, given that the Pakistani establishment was giving aid to the Taliban (for strategic rather than ideological reasons it would seem) about ten years ago there might be resistance higher-up. Pakistan's in a fragile political state as it is, they won't want to inflame it.

Getting Iran involved would be too dangerous.

Turkmenistan doesn't, I think, really have the military power for an intervention.

Ditto Uzbekistan.

Indian troops operating on the Pakistani border or even in Pakistan itself would have severe political repercussions.

There's is a talk by this chap:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/thomas_barnett.html

I think ties in with my POV.

just as the WTC came down, i was reading "Flasman"

not a No.1 to do on world leaders list, but as soon as they said about going into afgan...

i said NO!.....Stop!!!!!

we have been her before and it did not work then!!!!!!!

let the afghans kill each other and lets just switch our support around and around the different factions until there is no threat any more,

this sounds racist i'm sure but there is no-one an afghan would rather kill than another afghan who slighted his family in some way some time in the past

peace through superior fire power

I'd been expecting a war between the US and the Taliban since around the time of the Embassy bombings and how unimpressed they were by the US missile response. It seemed inevitable they'd get bolder and more ambitious as the US failed to appreciate their potential.

In principle I was in favour of NATO intervention there. Though I was always sceptical that we'd deliver much of what had to be to make a lasting positive impact from my liberal atheist European perspective.

Once the Iraq spectre began to rise it was always gonna be either one massive failure or two massive failures.

Only a fool fights a war on two fronts. Only a madman on 12.

Russia would be far less fastidious than us, and as they couldn't control the Taliban why did we think we could ?

Based on our previous experience in the area, our only chance is to get the people on our side, on their terms.

The Taliban are growing stronger in Pakistan - there can only be a limited ammount of time before the military react - strongly.

Because we weren't using half starved conscript armies, had overwhelming technological superiority and billion dollar aid budgets that could appeal to the pragmatic nature of people unhappy with Taliban repression?

Key to the whole thing is getting Afghans onside. We're sending out mixed messages about the poppy crop. In Helmand & Kandahar we either turn a blind eye or destroy the crops. Given that there's a shortage of morphine in the West, we should buy the entire crop for a year then give the farmers an alternative. We’re already doing just that in Uruzgan. The locals are given Saffran seeds, which have almost the same market price as poppies have. The reconstruction people have, beforehand, made a deal with some European spice merchant to buy the whole lot. If Afghan farmers are given a reason to get cosy with the Coalition rather than the Taleban, there's less chance they'll support the insurgents. In fact if the Taleban threaten the income of the farmers, chances are they'll alienate them.

SWL, that will never happen, it makes too much sense.

They deny that the Pentagon runs the US but I think it's interesting that every US foreign policy endeavour ends up needing the cavalry before it's over.

I've always thought that the war in Afghanistan was one worth fighting: the world is a better place with the Taliban out of power. What must happen now is ensuring they won't creep back in and I think Obama is making a mistake when he says that the Taliban might have a place at any future negotiating table.

>>The question is, where do we go from here?<<

Help the Afghans develop functioning social and governmental structures so they can defend and govern themselves. A strong central government isn't going to work given all the cleavages in Afghan society: a federal government would probably be more appropriate.

Afghanistan has always had a destabilising effect on Pakistan, but Pakistan keeps functioning. Since more or less the day it was founded, Pakistan has looked on the brink of disintegration and it still manages to keep it together somehow. However, as Zagreb pointed out, they can (and have) remove the northern areas of Pakistan from government control - this could cause major problems for the region as they might attempt to inflame the Kashmir conflict (the conflict most likely to lead to nuclear war imo) and even cause trouble with the Chinese by encouraging trouble in Xinziang.

Involving other in the region is a good idea: Pakistan is inextricably caught up in the conflict already; Iran, depending on what happens in the elections, might want to get involved - they've got unfinished business with the Taliban and might be persuaded to act responsibly; Turkmenistan wouldn't be interested and Tajikistan is a basket-case but Uzbekistan might be interested and have the troops.

India had good relations with the Northern Alliance before the fall of the Taliban and would probably be perfectly acceptable to many of the non-Pashtun groups. China could probably be brought on board too - if nothing else a stable Afghanistan gives them another link the the Middle East and beyond through Wakhan and an alternative route to the Trans-Karakorum Highway.

I think the war in Afghanistan will be long, hard and brutal but the Coalition should stay in it until its won.