Finally! An alternative for Afghan poppy growers

[lord of the mark]

evidently the level of violence doesnt stop EVERYONE from investing

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp112607.shtml

and related

http://in.news.yahoo.com/071125/203/6noep.html

all kinds of challenges:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/396b256af37e91b75ad0b1674b104268.htm

[Wezil]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Id like to know the circumstances that led to that. Not just an assertion out of the blue that hed do that for no particular reason, with no discussion of the political context. If he DID ask us to leave, under circumstances of a broad domestic consensus to do so, and without enabling sanctuary for AQ, I think it would be extremely difficult for us to stay.

If he did so on the basis of an agreement with the Taliban that enable all or part of Afghanistan to be a haven for AQ, then we would not leave. But then if ANY state where we currently have troops, were to declare itself a haven for AQ, I would have trouble seeing us not keeping troops there.

The details don't really matter. With either option the decision to stay or go will be based upon our percieved best interests, not theirs.

They also werent acceptable to the former Northern Alliance elements, who are in fact the strongest political opposition to Kharzai, and who have found Kharzai to be too soft on ex-Taliban. AFAICT, between the ex NA types on the one side, and the Pashtuns (including guys whod collaborated with the Taliban) on the other, my impression is that Kharzai and the pro-Western Kabul types were about as close to the Afghan center as you could find.

NA were also our "friends" with histories. The key words in this section in my mind is your phrase of "pro-Western kabul types". This was what we were after and surprise, surprise, that's the government that was "elected".

Naturally when there are two allies, and the fighting is happening on the soil of one, there are going to be disagreements about strategy and tactics. And he cant do much to stop us, cause if he does, we can leave, which is still a bigger threat to him, than to us. And will be until the Afghan national army is strong enough to fight the Taliban on its own.

You're right he can't do much about it. You talk about the ANA being able to fight Taliban....How long do you think it will take before Karzai can dispense with his US personal guard? Talk about supporting yet another unpopular government. This man can't even depend on his countrymen for his personal security.

I think the Taliban returning to power would be disaster for 80% of Afghans, and an unmitigated disaster for about 50% of Afghans. And virtually the end of the world, for about 20% of Afghans.

It's certainly not a government I'd ever want to live under but then again, it isn't my country. There are lots of really bad places in the world but we don't occupy them and start killing the locals b/c they don't meet our standards.

Have you ever read The Kite Runner, by Khalid Husseini?

No. It looks interesting however. Maybe I'll go the movie route (my time for pleasure reading is rather limited).

Western troops are dying, its natural to want to get out. Body bags going back to Toronto and Vancouver.

Again, this isn't my motivation. I see every death as a sad and needless loss however it's not like this country (and yours) can't sustain the level of casualties involved.

Here in the USA, theres no pressure to get out of Afghan, cause to the center left, Afghanistan is the "good war", the one thats being lost because the eevil neocons went into Iraq. The implicit (and sometimes explicit) arguement is made that one of the advantages of withdrawl from Iraq, is that we could increase the number of troops and other resources in Afghanistan where the "real" war on terror is being fought. In that context no one serious on the left of USA politics talks about Afghanistan the way many Canadians routinely do. I have little doubt, thought, that were it not for that historical quirk, thered be Americans complaining about the casualty toll in Afghanistan.

There are legitimate complaints about the Afghan mission on both sides of the border completely unrelated to casualties. You sound like this is the only reason people are opposed.

You will take people in, whether you owe them anything or not, cause you always do. What do you owe the people of Somalia? That they suffered? The people of Afghanistan suffered as much. I also think we in the West owe them something for the fall of the USSR, and for our neglect in the years that followed, which led to the rise of the Taliban. But again, that may play differently in Canada than it does in the US.

I don't owe the people of Somalia anything either. yes we will take in refugees that need safe refuge but we don't go invading nations to make their homes better. You mention Somalia....That mission turned out well for both our nations (and Somalia itself of course) didn't it?

We have lots of afghan owned businesses where I live, but they are mainly folks who left Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. Some in fact went back to Afghanistan to rebuild it.

We have both groups now.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil

The details don't really matter. With either option the decision to stay or go will be based upon our percieved best interests, not theirs.

our govt decisions will of course be based on our perceived best interests, and should be. Our perceived best interests will reflect the negative consequences of trying to stay in defiance of the Kharzai govt. What those consequences would be, will of course depend on the circumstances in which a Kharzai govt asked us to leave.

They also werent acceptable to the former Northern Alliance elements, who are in fact the strongest political opposition to Kharzai, and who have found Kharzai to be too soft on ex-Taliban. AFAICT, between the ex NA types on the one side, and the Pashtuns (including guys whod collaborated with the Taliban) on the other, my impression is that Kharzai and the pro-Western Kabul types were about as close to the Afghan center as you could find.

NA were also our "friends" with histories.

And how is that relevant? Everyone on Afghanistan has a history. Were the NA really our "friends"? Prior to 9/11 they relied on Russia and India for support, mainly. They became our friends cause we all opposed the Taliban. Anyway, are you saying that only anti-US elements could be considered politically legitimate?

The key words in this section in my mind is your phrase of "pro-Western kabul types". This was what we were after and surprise, surprise, that's the government that was "elected".

IIUC, some of the pro-western Kabul types were ex-commies. They becamse pro-western, cause of the politcal reality in Afghanistan. Anyway, who else do you think could have commanded a majority in Afghanistan. No way the Taliban could have. The NA would have had difficulty reaching out to the Pashtuns, or maintaining a stable rule in Kabul. Thats why the NA accepted Kharzai.

Naturally when there are two allies, and the fighting is happening on the soil of one, there are going to be disagreements about strategy and tactics. And he cant do much to stop us, cause if he does, we can leave, which is still a bigger threat to him, than to us. And will be until the Afghan national army is strong enough to fight the Taliban on its own.

You're right he can't do much about it. You talk about the ANA being able to fight Taliban....How long do you think it will take before Karzai can dispense with his US personal guard?

I dont know. I would think the priority would be to have ANA units deployed in the provinces, where their cultural knowledge gives them a comparative advantage over coalition troops.

Talk about supporting yet another unpopular government. This man can't even depend on his countrymen for his personal security.

Which, in a land of conspiracy and assasination, says nothing about his actual popularity. Anyway, AFAICT he HAS become unpopular. So what? His likely successor will probably be someone who's anti-Taliban, and who wants to keep coalition troops around to fight them.

I think the Taliban returning to power would be disaster for 80% of Afghans, and an unmitigated disaster for about 50% of Afghans. And virtually the end of the world, for about 20% of Afghans.

It's certainly not a government I'd ever want to live under but then again, it isn't my country. There are lots of really bad places in the world but we don't occupy them and start killing the locals b/c they don't meet our standards.

Like I said, pulling coalition troops out wont improve things. Not for the US, as you earlier conceded, and not for the people of Afghanistan. Its not your country. Arlington, VA, and NY, NY ARE MY country, and we are fighting to keep the folks who attacked those out of power. That what we are doing ALSO helps the people of another country, only adds to the reason to do it.

But again, its not an occupation, and we arent killing locals cause they "dont meet our standards".

Have you ever read The Kite Runner, by Khalid Husseini?

No. It looks interesting however. Maybe I'll go the movie route (my time for pleasure reading is rather limited).

Western troops are dying, its natural to want to get out. Body bags going back to Toronto and Vancouver.

Again, this isn't my motivation. I see every death as a sad and needless loss however it's not like this country (and yours) can't sustain the level of casualties involved.

Here in the USA, theres no pressure to get out of Afghan, cause to the center left, Afghanistan is the "good war", the one thats being lost because the eevil neocons went into Iraq. The implicit (and sometimes explicit) arguement is made that one of the advantages of withdrawl from Iraq, is that we could increase the number of troops and other resources in Afghanistan where the "real" war on terror is being fought. In that context no one serious on the left of USA politics talks about Afghanistan the way many Canadians routinely do. I have little doubt, thought, that were it not for that historical quirk, thered be Americans complaining about the casualty toll in Afghanistan.

There are legitimate complaints about the Afghan mission on both sides of the border completely unrelated to casualties. You sound like this is the only reason people are opposed.

I think thats the real motivation. As we've made clear ("its not my country") it isnt out of concern for the people of Afghanistan.

You will take people in, whether you owe them anything or not, cause you always do. What do you owe the people of Somalia? That they suffered? The people of Afghanistan suffered as much. I also think we in the West owe them something for the fall of the USSR, and for our neglect in the years that followed, which led to the rise of the Taliban. But again, that may play differently in Canada than it does in the US.

I don't owe the people of Somalia anything either. yes we will take in refugees that need safe refuge but we don't go invading nations to make their homes better. You mention Somalia....That mission turned out well for both our nations (and Somalia itself of course) didn't it?

Turning tail and running didnt turn out well, it inspired AQ to think of us as a paper tiger. But theres really no comparison anyway.

[Wezil]

There it is. I knew I wouldn't have to wait long.

"Turn tail and run".

Next we'll be talking about little girls going to school again.

[DinoDoc]

You sound like this is the only reason people are opposed.

Is it the cowardly Euro scum not stepping up? Because if it isn't I don't really understand your opposition.

[Wezil]

I'm opposed b/c I see it as an occupation. As much as I dislike the Taliban it is not my country and my military should not be determining their future.

So Afghanistan is a ****hole. So what? So is Zimbabwe and I don't see us fueling up the tanks to better the lives of little girls there.

[DinoDoc]

Were/are you opposed to Canadian troops in Kosovo or any of the other places they are?

[Wezil]

I have opposed past deployments as well.

Kosovo was an air war.

[DinoDoc]

Talking about the occupation there. At least you're consistent though. In your view, what role would you ideally like the Canadian armed forces to fill? Would you like the country to withdraw from NATO?

[Wezil]

I don't want the CAF to be a force of occupation. Self-defence, natural disaster and collective security inside a functioning/responsive alliance would be their main chores.

NATO is a proven failure. Withdraw? Why bother ? Let's just take the approach of the French and Germans and refuse to fight.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
I don't want the CAF to be a force of occupation. Self-defence, natural disaster and collective security inside a functioning/responsive alliance would be their main chores.

Please define your notion of collective self-defense.

[Wezil]

I'll tell you what it doesn't include: It doesn't include indefinite "nation building" projects involving the support of unpopular governments.

Does anyone really think the Taliban coming back to power is a real threat to the West? They'd have to walk to Pakistan for gawd sakes just to catch a plane to get anywhere near us! Refuge for AQ? As if there are a shortage of places AQ can hang out (including the countries of some of our "friends and allies" of course). If AQ/Taliban/Afghanistan were to pose a future threat then we can do what we did years ago and remove them. Rebuilding is up to them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
I'll tell you what it doesn't include:

I didn't ask that, Wezil.

[Wezil]

Short answer - If one is attacked all will lay a whooping on the attacker. Wrt to Afghanistan, this has already been done.

[Wezil]

.