NATO members show how much they value the Alliance

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, because they'll move to the safe haven nearby and leave Afghanistan.

Yes, this worked like a charm for the Soviets.

They had much higher troop levels and were prepared to use much more force yet gave up after a decade of futility.

How long will we stay?

The objectives required were met a long time ago. We invaded the country that harbored the terrorists and removed them from power. It is not our job to build roads and schools and impose a particular type of civil society on these people that they obviously don't want.

As to the "stable government" required by an earlier poster (Kuci?) - That will not be possible so long as the government is "our guy". The Taliban were a stable government capable of suppressing dissent but we won't support that type of government.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It's embarrassing that we have any troops there at all.

Disclaimer: for those who haven't noticed, I am an individual, who happens to be Communist, i.e my ideas are shared by a minority of the French. Please be kind enough not to confuse me with my country, and especially with its current government, thank you

The French are all the same, you don't fool me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil


Yes, this worked like a charm for the Soviets.

They had much higher troop levels and were prepared to use much more force yet gave up after a decade of futility.

How long will we stay?

The objectives required were met a long time ago. We invaded the country that harbored the terrorists and removed them from power. It is not our job to build roads and schools and impose a particular type of civil society on these people that they obviously don't want.

As to the "stable government" required by an earlier poster (Kuci?) - That will not be possible so long as the government is "our guy". The Taliban were a stable government capable of suppressing dissent but we won't support that type of government.

The Soviets have never done anything right. Look at serb.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wezil
As to the "stable government" required by an earlier poster (Kuci?) - That will not be possible so long as the government is "our guy". The Taliban were a stable government capable of suppressing dissent but we won't support that type of government.

The Taliban were a problem because they were shielding terrorists. I'd be fine leaving Afghanistan in the hands of a stable dictatorship if it didn't harbor them.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher


The Soviets have never done anything right. Look at serb.

Your point is well taken but even you must admit they did brutality quite well. The Pashtuns are extremely tribal and brutality is a message they do understand.

Kuci - Quite frankly "we" shouldn't leave it in the hands of anyone. That is part of the problem. Let them decide their own future. If it takes them a decade of fighting to sort it out again then that's up to them. If the Taliban return to power, so be it. If they return to their old ways then we can send them packing again (this only takes a matter of weeks) and let them spend another decade returning to power.

I don't "owe" Afghanistan or Afghani's anything in the way of future aid or development. Their friends attacked us. Quite frankly there are plenty of ****holes around the world more deserving of aid.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Wezil

The objectives required were met a long time ago. We invaded the country that harbored the terrorists and removed them from power.

We removed them from power, but they are still actively trying to regain control.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
Hi Spiffor!

Hi

Are the French people really that confused between the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan? Do they see it as two parts of the same event?

I think there's a bit of confusion, but I have no polls to back it up.

Sending extra troops to Afghanistan became prominent for a few days in the French political debate. It's very rare that the public opinion cares any significantly about foreign policy (for example, there was basically no debate about us sending the bulk of the peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, or to Darfur - heck, even the French presence in Ivory Coast hasn't been nearly as much debated, despite the semi-war we had there).
I think the French are largely hostile to sending extra troops in Afghanistan, but I have no figures to back up that impression.

As far as I gather, the main reasons for this hostility are the following:
- Sarkozy sucks up to the US, as examplified by his Washington speech, by France getting back into NATO's integrated command...
Sending more troops to Afghanistan is seen as a part of this policy of sucking your balls. And many French people dislike this (be they anti-Americans, be they nostalgic of de Gaulle, be they supporters of an independent French or European defense)

- The big political debate over here is about domestic issues. Basically, Sarkozy's government tells us there is no money for schools, for hospitals or for wages anymore. The disappointment is especially strong because he touted himself the "president of the purchasing power" a year ago during the campaign.
And yet, despite saying "les caisses sont vides" (the coffers are empty) he'll be wasting money sending our troops half a world away.

- Afghanistan is seen as doomed to failure. Had there been optimism about the war, I think it would have been overlooked by the political debate, as is the case with the Lebanon peacekeeping force. But with the pessimism, it is seen as an complete waste to spend lives or money there.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Verto



We removed them from power, but they are still actively trying to regain control.

So? They will continue to do so as long as there are Pashtuns. Do you have a solution for that?

[Asher]

Send 'em to Texas.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Wezil


So? They will continue to do so as long as there are Pashtuns. Do you have a solution for that?

Maintain a NATO presence long enough for the new government to stabilize, instead of immediately toppling after we leave.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So you don't think the war in Afghanistan was justified under Article 5?

Actually yes.

I had that feeling as soon as Sept. 12. That the US would wage its war with planes and bombs, whereas the only way to actually win against a terrorist enemy is with secret services and other subtle ways.

I was against the Afghanistan war to begin with. Once it was done, I supported a temporary occupation of Afghanistan to restore a central government, but that happened to be a failure (much like in Iraq).

Now, maybe the west should accept that Afghanistan will remain clan-ridden until the Afghan society moves on by itself.
In the meantime, it should provide weapons and support to the faction that is most likely to keep a relative stability, not harbour threats to regional or world peace.
And NATO/US should have a gentleman's agreement with regional powers to that effect (including such nice countries as Iran, Pakistan and China). Nobody among the regionals want Afghanistan to be a timebomb anyway.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Verto


Maintain a NATO presence long enough for the new government to stabilize, instead of immediately toppling after we leave.

I mentioned my thoughts on this earlier (in our x-post).

We have been there for over 6 years now and last year was the worst yet for political violence. Things are deteriorating as the occupation drags on. This should not be surprising (Iraq in miniature). There will not be a "stable" (read "western friendly") government in Afghanistan so long as it is our guy supported by our troops. To this day Karzai depends upon foreigners for his personal guard. Afghanis cannot be trusted for the job.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Exactly. I appreciate your admission of Europes guilt.

The US has itself to blame for the meagre contribution as well you know. The dubious cause and the catastrophic execution of the Iraq war has reflected very badly on Afghanistan in the mind of the European public.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I had that feeling as soon as Sept. 12. That the US would wage its war with planes and bombs, whereas the only way to actually win against a terrorist enemy is with secret services and other subtle ways.

That's imo true for "classic" terrorist action going on as covert ops done by hidden cells etc., but what we had here was a terrorist org being at least paramilitarily organized and being closely related to a state and its military (if you can speak of a distinct "military" in case of the Taliban, which seems to be militant at the core), so I think that was indeed a whole new dimension.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Actually yes.

To clarify, is this "yes-I-think-it-was-justified" or "yes-I-don't-think-it-was-justified"?