The US hasn't forgotten Afghanistan

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Sorry lotm, if someone doesn't do something about those poppy fields soon, the US is going to lose all credibility for actually caring what Afghanistan is up to.

More at stake in the country than AQ - much more. I walk past junkies on the make almost every day, and it's infuriating to think where that junk ultimately comes from.

well from that point of view, the us should be sending troops to Colombia and Bolivia, more than Afghanistan. The real way to deal with drug abuse is at the demand side - the supply will always be there - now hows that for threadjacking

Economic and political improvement should help with the opium. But dealing with opium production IS seconday for the US now - its too bad about drug addicts, but at least i can decide not to be one - i cant simply decide not to be a victim of terrorism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by red_jon
But isn't the Northern Alliance in control? The current leaders are not democratic are they?

the current central govt is effectively a coalition, with some of the posts held by warlords (notably Defense minister fahim ) Not all the warlords are fundamentalists by any means - dostum is known as a womanizing whiskey drinker. Ismael Khan is a fundie I suppose, but a far cry from the Taliban. The propaganda that the NA was "taliban-lite" was never more than just propaganda. For example even in the area dominated by "fundamentalist" khan girls schools have reopened since the fall of the Taliban.

The central govt controls Kabul and several provinces around it. Recent reports indicate the govt now effectively controls the large province to the west of Kabul, mountanous Bamiyan. Karzai controlled governors struggle against the taliban in the province along the eastern border with Pakistan. the rest of country (70%?) is in the hands of warlords, though even there karzai has been extending the writ of the central govt, eg he's managed to get the warlords to turn over customs revenues to the central govt.

For a historical analogy in the west to what Karzai is doing , i suggest reading the history of the Capetian kings of France, especially Philip Augustus.

[TCO]

Originally posted by St Leo


Typical conservative ad hominem.

Yes. But that doesn't change that the title is Afghanistan.

Dumb****.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Pekka
Fez, I'd really appreciate if you woudlnt' call everyone eurocom, as you mean it in a negative way. I take that as a racist remark to every European, which you are yourself btw. It's not anything personal, I just don't like that term when I see it, no matter who uses it if it's not humor or something. My 2 European cents.

I am 100% European, but what pisses me off are those leftist europeans who think they stand for Europe.

And to the subject, I think the key is abolishing the whole warlord thing. They have too much power to make these things work, and we don't know for sure if they're playing with us or the enemy. There is no place for such positions in democracy. Change the system.

It will take time to abolish the warlord idea. Time is what is needed... I never said anything against the idea that time would be required to overcome warlords. The country has got to get its institutions up and running.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Sorry lotm, if someone doesn't do something about those poppy fields soon, the US is going to lose all credibility for actually caring what Afghanistan is up to.

More at stake in the country than AQ - much more. I walk past junkies on the make almost every day, and it's infuriating to think where that junk ultimately comes from.

Those opium fields will come to an end soon enough.

There is an oil pipeline that will be built through Afghanistan I heard, so the country is strategically located.

[rev]

Originally posted by Fez


Those opium fields will come to an end soon enough.

... just as soon as there's no reason to grow poppys anymore.

I'm not a military man, but I'd be surprised if we had the resources in Afghanistan to launch a full-on drug war AND keep a lid on the remnants of the Taliban and those al-Qaeda left behind.

After all, we can't even seem to find Omar OR Osama. But apparantely that's no longer part of the war on terrorism.

There is an oil pipeline that will be built through Afghanistan I heard, so the country is strategically located.

I heard that two... several years ago. After all, Shell executives were working on the details of it with the Taliban.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by rev
I'm not a military man, but I'd be surprised if we had the resources in Afghanistan to launch a full-on drug war AND keep a lid on the remnants of the Taliban and those al-Qaeda left behind.

I am sure if the Afghan Army is fully trained it will deal with it.

After all, we can't even seem to find Omar OR Osama. But apparantely that's no longer part of the war on terrorism.

Omar and Osama will be found. I don't ****ing care how long it takes, he will be found. Stop being a unruly pessimist and start acceping reality. What counts is the US has got those ****ers on the run... and that is all that counts.

I heard that two... several years ago. After all, Shell executives were working on the details of it with the Taliban.

And? The taliban are now gone.

[reds4ever]

How can you expect an Afghan force do anything about poppy fields? Their wages will be so low and theres so much money in growing the stuff, they'll be ripe for corruption!

[rev]

I am sure if the Afghan Army is fully trained it will deal with it.

With what money?

Afghanistan's reconstruction was completely left out of Bush's annual budget. The one billion being proposed will help, and it sure sounds like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things it's not very much. As someone else has already noted, we spend that much a *week* in Iraq.

Bush is not a "nation-builder". He's said it himself, he campaigned on it, and he was elected (at least partially) on it. 9/11 changed a lot of things, but it probably won't make a nation-builder out of a staunch conservative.

But that's what people wanted to hear after 9/11: eliminating our foes and reaching out to the world. Since then, we've gotten rid of some of our foes, but we haven't exactly reached out to the world and, in doing so, we're sowing a whole new row of foes.

What counts is the US has got those ****ers on the run... and that is all that counts.

No, what counts is whether or not we've stopped or slowed the threats posed by bin Laden's terrorist group. We may have slowed it in the short-term, but we're giving Osama bin Missing a lot more of a field of people to choose from -- people who are even more livid at the US.

Plus, Osama was on the run for quite some time. Even Clinton had a nuclear submarine armed with cruise missiles in the Indian Ocean waiting for good intelligence on Osama's location.

And? The taliban are now gone.

Are they?

Surely they've been diminished, but they're not entirely *gone*. They will never be entirely gone because they are not a finite group. We've declared war on an entire strain on beliefs that will not die unless we cut to the root of it.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by rev


With what money?

With the $1 billion going to Afghanistan additionally. And with that I am not responding to the rest of your post as it is nonsense as usual. Get back to me when you start talking sense. You haven't done so in the years I have known you.

[rev]

You don't have to respond to anything I say, but I'll continue to refute nonsense as long as I'm here and have enough free time to do so. If you don't want to defend against my arguments, that's your call.

For example:

One again, it needs to be pointed out that the one billion dollars proposed for Afghanistan is nearly nothing, particularly considering that the country got NO money in Bush's budget. It may very well be a clever way of hiding the costs of our overseas adventures, which Paul Wolfowitz has clearly been doing in regard to Iraq.

[Giancarlo]

You have arguments? Since when?

Also the $1 billion is just additional funds, it is the total. If I were you I would read the article a bit closer before doing or saying something stupid.

[Giancarlo]

Just a little tid bit supporting my view for at least the Kabul area:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030803/168/4vbs5.html&e=1&ncid=708

Afghan day laborers rest beside the wall of a mosque while waiting for job offers in Kabul, Afghanistan (news - web sites), Sunday, Aug. 3, 2003. With a total population in Kabul at nearly 3 million, a 300 percent expansion from the end of 2001, as the city is rebuilding and expanding after more than two decades of war, skilled masons and carpenters make 500 Afghanis (about US$ 10) but day laborers get 100 Afghanis (about US$ 2) for a day's work. (AP Photo/Apichart Weerawong)

[rev]

Alright, I admit I was wrong about the budget. Afghanistan has money and the $1 billion is in addition to it. Regardless, $1 billion is nowhere near the amount of money we'll be spending merely *occupying* Iraq.

At the same time, our mission there is nowhere near accomplished. From the same article you referenced, Fez, it can be noted that we've only spent $200 million in construction projects there. Why? Because all we really control is Kabul.

In fact, here is a nice article from the same newspaper (dated today) about the rise of political violence in Afghanistan.