Leaving Afghanistan

[dannubis]

France is just an example Alpie. Spain had it much sooner. England followed suit short after Spain. It largely depended on pre-existing social structures and outside events . I don't see any magical increasing productivity ending the feudal system.

[BeBMan]

Almost as effective as: (warning do not read more than one word at a time as passage can be damaging to your health)

Spoiler:

Joke Brigade: (together) Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

Yeah, and I still think it was a mistake to ban this type of warfare after WWII.

[Al B. Sure!]

France is just an example Alpie. Spain had it much sooner. England followed suit short after Spain. It largely depended on pre-existing social structures and outside events . I don't see any magical increasing productivity ending the feudal system.

Oh nice. So now you're backtracking from your previous claims. Interesting...

It's not 'increasing' productivity per se; its a reorganization of the economy giving more economic power to the urban bourgeoisie accompanied by the transfer, first by halbreds and pike warfare and then intensified by the rising commonality of guns, of the means of war away from the landed nobility to the common people. It was this commoner power base, utilized with national armies and state bureaucracies, which those monarchs like Louis XIII taped into to move away from feudalism, but it was an inexorable historical process given certain conditions, not the whim of a few monarchs and their ministers. The nation-state did not just spring up; it was the result of a shift in socio-economic and political power brought upon and encouraged by numerous conditions which I previously touched upon.

[Ben Kenobi]

How the hell do you think your 'nation-state' was 'advented' if not as a predictable reaction to economic stimulus? Where do you think it came from?

Westphalia.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem with "pressing on" is that our objective ("a stable, anti-Taliban Afghan government") isn't being achieved by our current strategy.

And how would giving up achieve this objective?

Pakistan is funding and arming the Taliban. The Taliban's Pakistani Pashtun compatriots are assisting the Taliban. Bush tried to dissuade the Pakistani state and Obama probably did too, but both failed. For whatever reason, Pakistan's elite has decided that its future is tied to the future victory of the Talibani insurgency.

Which is why the problem isn't in Afghanistan but with Pakistan. You are right the strategy needs to change, but giving up isn't the answer. Finding a way to effectively deal with Pakistan is the answer.

Staying in Afghanistan, with any prospect of success, means dealing with Pakistan. Negotiations, concession and diplomacy have failed. War with Pakistan is not on the cards. There simply isn't anything left for us to do in these circumstances.

There's quite a few options still. I do not believe that Obama has negotiated with Pakistan with any degree of effectiveness, and that part of the problem is the fact that he's unable and unwilling to do anything productive.

So the first part of a successful strategy with Pakistan is to dump Obama out the nearest window.

Is it a happy outcome? Do I wish that there was no porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do I wish that Afghans conceived of themselves as a people rather than a collection of warring tribes? Or that the Pashtuns on each side of the border didn't subscribe to a backward tribal code and belief system that facilitated and propped up the Taliban and Al Qaida? Of course I do.

It will take time. That is why I said when Afghanistan begun, that America has to be prepared to be there 50 years. Not necessarily in a shooting capacity, but with boots on the ground. This is why I was against intervention in the first place.

Let me give you a not-so-hypothetical. Build a school in one village? Great. It was bombed last weak. Collateral damage means the locals hate the Americans; and when the Americans rotate to another village to "build and secure", the Taliban comes back to the first village. This is not "progress." Farmers growing crops instead of opium? The Taliban burns down the crops. And all the while Taliban propaganda blames the US.

I take the outside view. The only people who give a **** bout the actual afghanistan people, are the americans and the other coalition members who are protecting them. Nobody ****s in their own bed, and the mujaheedin idiots are the ones coming from Pakistan to take a giant **** in Afghanistan.

If there were some other means by which we could achieve our goal in Afghanistan I would support it. But if there is, it isn't apparent to the military or the politicans involved in the intervention throughout the world. And that means that to our knowledge, our current intervention just isn't doing enough long term good for American (or broader Western) interests to continue unabated.

The problems are localized to where it is easiest for the folks crossing from Pakistan to stir stuff up. Yes, it's annoying and frustrating, but I don't believe that much of the current issues stem from those within Afghanistan. This is progress.

[Al B. Sure!]

Apparently, people confuse the results of a historical process for the origin. I guess that's what happens when history education is centered around the memorization of facts and dates and not an understanding of sociology and economics.

[giblets]

Most public school teachers are not in fact marxists.

[Ben Kenobi]

1) what are you talking about?
2) are you denying that civilian casualties have increased since 2006 and are continuing to do so?

The chart treats all deaths as 'civilian casulties'

1) troop numbers have increased dramatically since obama became president. and yet;
2) civilians casualties have increased.
3) fighting has spread to previously quiet regions.
4) the afghan army is almost useless. the afghan government is worse than useless.

That suggests to me that the problem is Obama, not with the current strategy. Obama has changed the engagement rules to the detriment of everyone there. Dump Obama, and the engagement rules go back to what works.

by any reasonable measure things have gotten worse and not better.

I agree, just I believe the changes have to do with Obama's changes which have been worse than useless.

what on earth makes you think that staying there any longer will improve things, it beggars belief.

Because when Obama got in, he campaigned on withdrawal. He's had two years to implement the policy, and hasn't done **** all. The only things he has done has put more troops into it, and nerfed their ability to do their job.

So that to me says that there's hope for things to actually work, because Obama wouldn't have sabotaged the effort otherwise.

[Ben Kenobi]

I guess that's what happens when history education is centered around the memorization of facts and dates and not an understanding of sociology and economics.

Facts are facts. The concept of national sovereignty as we understand it today only emerged at Westphalia.

Why? Probably something to do with the fact that religion was no longer a unifying factor, and the desire for nations to have their own state religion, as we see in England, and in the scandinavian countries, and in prussia.

Prior to that we have things like the King of England petitioning to be Emperor of Germany, the 100 years war was a civil war between the Plantagenets and the Capetians, the Kalmar Union, Poland-Lithuania. The Austrians, the Kingdom of Spain, etc.

Families were the key thing, not nations.

[BeBMan]

Westphalia.

That would be the territorial state first.

The first modern nation states are those where the "nation" and its souvereignty became the primary political category as opposed to the "souvereignty of the ruler over his subjects regardless of their nation" for example in absolutism. Like US and France after their revolutions.

[Al B. Sure!]

Most public school teachers are not in fact marxists.

You don't have to be a Marxist to be aware of how economy, technology, and other forces shape historical dynamics.

Perhaps the first to analyze this was Ibn Khaldun who posited a motive force throughout history which he termed "asabiyah", meaning social solidarity.

Hegel and Oswald Spengler also had 'historicist' views but were not Marxists, either.

[Al B. Sure!]

Facts are facts. The concept of national sovereignty as we understand it today only emerged at Westphalia.

Why? Probably something to do with the fact that religion was no longer a unifying factor, and the desire for nations to have their own state religion, as we see in England, and in the scandinavian countries, and in prussia.

Prior to that we have things like the King of England petitioning to be Emperor of Germany, the 100 years war was a civil war between the Plantagenets and the Capetians, the Kalmar Union, Poland-Lithuania. The Austrians, the Kingdom of Spain, etc.

Families were the key thing, not nations.

And why did this change occur, Ben?

Like I said, you're confusing the RESULT of an inexorable historical process for the cause of a certain cultural state.

[Ben Kenobi]

The first modern nation states are those where the "nation" and its souvereignty became the primary political category as opposed to the "souvereignty of the ruler over his subjects regardless of their nation" for example in absolutism. Like US and France after their revolutions.

Or England after 1688. Those changes were inevitable after Westphalia, because as soon as a nation is seen as a territorial entity, then it is not as necessary to have a monarch. If a nation is defined as the 'land owned by the Plantagenets', then this will never happen.

[Ben Kenobi]

And why did this change occur, Ben?

Because the previous system collapsed in the 30 years war. The previous system relied upon religious unity throughout Europe to govern relationships between families and the Pope throughout Europe.

The solution was Westphalia, national soveriegnty over a territory. This fixed things until the French Revolution.

Like I said, you're confusing the RESULT of a inexorable historical process for the cause of a certain cultural state.

That's like arguing Newtonian Mechanics owed it's creation to the plague outbreak and not to Isaac Newton.

[giblets]

You don't have to be a Marxist to be aware of how economy, technology, and other forces shape historical dynamics.

Perhaps the first to analyze this was Ibn Khaldun who posited a motive force throughout history which he termed "asabiyah", meaning social solidarity.

Hegel and Oswald Spengler also had 'historicist' views but were not Marxists, either.

How the hell does a theory that attributes dynastic cycles to social cohesion have anything to do with economics or technology? You're basically lumping all theories that attribute societal changes to some cause together.