Why is the west still bothering with Afghanistan?

[Argus]

Noting with raised eyebrows that Afghanistan's pseudo-president Karzai is at it again, giving a televised speech accusing the US of conspiring with the Taliban in order to keep its troops there longer. This gives rise to the thought, yet again, of why we bother with that shithole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-hagel-karzai-afghanistan-20130310,0,3678038.story

Now I agree the US invasion was quite logical. But their naivety led them to try and install some sort of democratic government in a land where democracy is both unknown and unwelcome. What they got was Karazi, thoroughly corrupt, completely incompetent, and after a decade, still unable to inspire the slightest trace of confidence or respect in him by the country's people. He has no alliances, and no chance of staying on in power without western troops. The day after the US leaves he and his family will be on a plane to Egypt or Dubai where his hundreds of millions in stolen money are stashed. The day after that the Afghanistan military and police will melt away, and the Taliban will be right back in charge.

Efforts at building up the military are a complete waste of time. No matter how well you train them they're not going to have any loyalty to this man or his government. Who would? They'll join the Taliban or the militias of various warlords the moment the US and other western forces leave. In the meantime we get stories like this every week, where the very people being trained turn their guns on their trainers.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/world/asia/afghanistan-insider-attack/index.html

If any single man can be said to be responsible for the failure of the naive attempt at nation building it is Karzai. The man has guile but no real intelligence, no ability to make alliances, and after all these years of bombast and blowhard speeches, including many criticizing western troops, he controls virtually nothing in his country and never will. The US, had it been smart, would have put in a steely eyed strongman who would kill anyone who opposed him and build the country into something which could survive the outside interference from Pakistan, Iran and India and all the internal religious disputes. Unfortunately that didn't happen, and I see nothing but continued warlordism or Taliban government in Afghanistan's future.

[GostHacked]

Noting with raised eyebrows that Afghanistan's pseudo-president Karzai is at it again, giving a televised speech accusing the US of conspiring with the Taliban in order to keep its troops there longer. This gives rise to the thought, yet again, of why we bother with that shithole.

Being in Afghanistan allows the USA a tactical staging point for other operations.

Now I agree the US invasion was quite logical. But their naivety led them to try and install some sort of democratic government in a land where democracy is both unknown and unwelcome.

I don't think it was naivety, Karzai was put in for a reason. Former oil big wig himself. Indeed he is a puppet, for big oil.

If any single man can be said to be responsible for the failure of the naive attempt at nation building it is Karzai.

No he does not bear all the responsibility, and in my view not even a majority of the responsibility. Whoever put him into power is responsible for all this, but then again to me all done on purpose, and this is an intended result.

The

US, had it been smart, would have put in a steely eyed strongman who would kill anyone who opposed him and build the country into something ...

Like a Saddam? They install a pussycat leader and this is the result, if they had put a strongman in, then there would be complaints that the new leader is not showing democratic intentions by killing opponents.

which could survive the outside interference from Pakistan, Iran and India and all the internal religious disputes.

What about outside influence like that of NATO and the USA? We've heard it many times where the USA will have direct negotiations with the Taliban. This is a sign showing that the USA cannot win this one.

The soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan for a very long time. Even with the USA's much more modern tech and better trained troops, the place still cannot be won over. Ten years, trillions of dollars later ... democracy? Please the Karzai government is about as oppressive as the Taliban. Sharia law is still the law of the land, but I guess that can be democratic as they had chosen the same type of governing laws before.

Edited March 11, 2013 by GostHacked

[Shady]

Sorry GH, but you're incorrect. Iraq serves as a good staging ground for other operations, not Afghanistan. And no, trillions haven't been spent there.

Regardless, there's no need to stick around there any more. Just use sir power if they get out of line again.

[GostHacked]

Sorry GH, but you're incorrect. Iraq serves as a good staging ground for other operations, not Afghanistan. And no, trillions haven't been spent there.

Regardless, there's no need to stick around there any more. Just use sir power if they get out of line again.

Iraq and Afghanistan are tactically important. Iran.

But air power is being used, drones.

[eyeball]

Noting with raised eyebrows that Afghanistan's pseudo-president Karzai is at it again, giving a televised speech accusing the US of conspiring with the Taliban in order to keep its troops there longer. This gives rise to the thought, yet again, of why we bother with that shithole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-hagel-karzai-afghanistan-20130310,0,3678038.story

Now I agree the US invasion was quite logical. But their naivety led them to try and install some sort of democratic government in a land where democracy is both unknown and unwelcome.

I think the perception that supporting dictatorships in the region was the root cause of 9/11 must have struck a nerve somewhere and so they decided to try installing a democracy for a change.

The naivety was in believing they had the moral or ethical background for the job.

[ReeferMadness]

They had no business invading either Iraq or Afghanistan. All they did is prove (once again) that might makes right. No wonder all these little countries run by dictators want nukes. If Iraq actually had workable nukes, the US would have gone nowhere near.

The actions of the US and their camp-followers actually encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.

[TimG]

All they did is prove (once again) that might makes right.

So you have a problem with police who use 'might' to arrest criminals? You would rather live in a world where criminals are left alone to commit their crimes so the police don't need to get their hands dirty? Do you think that police arresting criminals simply encourages other criminals to get bigger guns? Edited March 12, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

They had no business invading either Iraq or Afghanistan. All they did is prove (once again) that might makes right.

Was there ever any doubt ?

No

wonder all these little countries run by dictators want nukes. If Iraq

actually had workable nukes, the US would have gone nowhere near.

Pakistan has 'nukes'....the U.S. 'invaded' and killed Osama Bin Hidin'...and continues drone strikes on its sovereign territory.

The actions of the US and their camp-followers actually encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.

Sure does....Canada is one of the main followers, providing uranium for fuel cycles and bomb making from the very beginning and continuing to the present day. Congratulations !

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Fun Info:

Opium production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since US intereference. The Taliban had been cracking down on it.

Maybe the US needs the drugs to keep their national war, the war on drugs, going strong?

[GostHacked]

Fun Info:

Opium production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since US intereference. The Taliban had been cracking down on it.

Maybe the US needs the drugs to keep their national war, the war on drugs, going strong?

After the Taliban got rid of poppy farming, the pharmaceutical industry was short on a key component for many prescription drugs. Europe specifically.

[Army Guy]

Opium production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since US intereference. The Taliban had been cracking down on it.

Another wifes tale, Taliban used the opium/ Drug trade to fund it's wars, and oppression on it's own people...Nato's beef is not with the drug dealers but with the Taliban, NATO stop targeting them to remove those warlords and their armies from the battle field...So NATO could concentrate on killing taliban...

Edited March 12, 2013 by Army Guy

[GostHacked]

Opium production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since US intereference. The Taliban had been cracking down on it.

I've covered this before in other threads

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/13/world/taliban-s-eradication-of-poppies-is-convulsing-opium-market.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/20/taliban-destroy-poppy-afghan-opium

Not sure if you like the UN as a source..

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/report_2001-10-16_1.pdf

Under executive Summary, the UN saw over a 90% eradication of poppy growth.

Another wifes tale, Taliban used the opium/ Drug trade to fund it's wars, and oppression on it's own people...Nato's beef is not with the drug dealers but with the Taliban, NATO stop targeting them to remove those warlords and their armies from the battle field...So NATO could concentrate on killing taliban...

So these reports above that I posted are wrong? And if the UN is giving out false information, how do we trust anything that organization says or does? Edited March 12, 2013 by GostHacked

[eyeball]

So you have a problem with police who use 'might' to arrest criminals? You would rather live in a world where criminals are left alone to commit their crimes so the police don't need to get their hands dirty? Do you think that police arresting criminals simply encourages other criminals to get bigger guns?

No it's obviously ignoring criminals that does that. I mean, if supporting a network of terror is a crime then what do you call it when you support a network of dictatorship, foreign aid?

[DogOnPorch]

The Taliban used opium in the past.

[eyeball]

Everyone used it including us. Heck, we even forced it on people at gunpoint.

[DogOnPorch]

Canada forced heroin on folks at gunpoint? Cool.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada forced heroin on folks at gunpoint? Cool.

No smack....no hockey !!

[GostHacked]

How does it makes sense anyways that if the Taliban eradicated opium production, why would they use the money off the production of these drugs.

This article indicates that the total funds from opium is much less than what is officially said. It still does not make sense that a group that wanted to eliminate the drugs is using drug money to fund its operations.

http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/08/13/who-is-funding-the-afghan-taliban-you-dont-want-to-know/

Up until quite recently, most experts thought that drug money accounted for the bulk of Taliban funding. But even here opinion was divided on actual amounts. Some reports gauged the total annual income at about $100 million, while others placed the figure as high as $300 million — still a small fraction of the $4 billion poppy industry.

Now administration officials have launched a search for Taliban sponsors. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a press conference in Islamabad last month that drugs accounted for less of a share of Taliban coffers than was previously thought.

“In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” said Holbrooke, according to media reports. “That is simply not true.”

The new feeling is that less than half of the Taliban’s war chest comes from poppy, with a variety of sources, including private contributions from Persian Gulf states, accounting for much of the rest. Holbrooke told reporters that he would add a member of the Treasury Department to his staff to pursue the question of Taliban funding.

[DogOnPorch]

No smack....no hockey !!

Some time ago...a few years at least...the local heroin dealer here was put in jail for some reason and was gone from his fortified house for several days. By the end of the week, a veritable camp-out was occurring in the bush surrounding his house as jonesing addicts waited for his release. The situation got so bad the dealer was released and 'allowed' to re-start business by the RCMP. Lesser of two evils as the B&Es were getting ridiculous.

[Army Guy]

Gost:

Not saying your reports are wrong, but i remember patroling down south, around Kanadar, on my second tour, Talibans home ground....and the fields were full of poppies...as far as the eye could see...and they belonged to the bad guys because we use to burn them, which stopped later on as they were taken over by war lords not sure this is the eradication they are talking about..But Taliban still control or force farmers along the border areas to grow poppies for them. Taliban also control large sectors of other drugs as well Hash, Coke, Heroin etc....The Drug trade plays a big role in their funding...

I'm also not saying they are false, but the whole time we spent outside the wire, we never seen any UN or for that matter any Agency civilian related around. so i'm not sure how they gathered up that info...and like i said we spent months at a time outside the wire.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

Up until quite recently, most experts thought that drug money accounted for the bulk of Taliban funding. But even here opinion was divided on actual amounts. Some reports gauged the total annual income at about $100 million, while others placed the figure as high as $300 million still a small fraction of the $4 billion poppy industry.

if i would to guess i would think it would have been alot higher, but local farmers did say their yeild out of a full acre was only 100.00 US dollars, Not sure how many pounds they got per acre not a whole lot....

However they did explain that the further down the chain you went the more money you made. it's the dealers in the west that are making the big money. But lets remember there is more to the drug trade than just Opium....And even a 100 mil buys alot of support, considering they ( Taliban soldiers) are paid less than 300 US dollars a month.

More than what the Afghan Army paided out....Besides can anyone clearly tell me how much the Hells Angles made from the drug trade last year, and they are in our back yard, not like they are claiming it to the tax debt.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Army Guy

[eyeball]

Canada forced heroin on folks at gunpoint? Cool.

The royal/western we i.e. Britain forced it on China. This is, I believe still a thread about the west and it's geo-political fetishes.

[TimG]

The royal/western we i.e. Britain forced it on China. This is, I believe still a thread about the west and it's geo-political fetishes.

What? Britain wanted to trade British goods like cloth for Chinese goods like tea and silk. China refused and demanded that the only thing they would accept is silver. Britain did not have silver but found that the Chinese would trade silver for opium. Problem solved.

[TheNewTeddy]

Why is the west still bothering with Afghanistan?

Cause they knocked down the twin towers and will try to do it again if we let the terrorists come back.

[eyeball]

So let me get this straight, the west has never pushed dope whilst pursuing it's aims?