U.S.' failure in Afghanistan

[Guest American Woman]

I will get into it more myself later when I have the time, but thank you, Army Guy, for taking the time to answer the question that I just didn't have the time to deal with yesterday. I will just comment on the "education" comments at this time, as dre's dismissal of education for an entire segment of an entire country was too much for me to even contemplate at the time. Sometimes one just has to walk away for a bit. So I'll just say that this says it all:

Nelson Mandela: "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."

MK Gandhi: "Educate a man and you educate one person; educate a woman and you educate a whole nation."

How anyone can put a price tag or time frame on such an important need is beyond me. Having said that, thank you so much to you and the rest of the troops who committed their time, away from their loved ones, and the families of those who gave their lives, to the mission. The dollar cost to each of us, as you pointed out, is peanuts. One very cheap night out on the town, at worst. The cost of one textbook in our countries.

[Army Guy]

Thank you AM, It is an up hill battle trying to convince anyone of the good that was done in Afghanistan.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thank you AM, It is an up hill battle trying to convince anyone of the good that was done in Afghanistan.

That's because some don't want to admit that there have been many improvements in Afghanistan since 2001:

"What have the Romans ever done for us?" shouts an indignant Reg in the Monty Python film Life of Brian. Reg's comrades then come up with an impressive list of development projects – all of which fall flat on Reg. "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a freshwater system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Thirty years after the film's release, this conversation neatly sums up the mood in Afghanistan. There is much development and progress, freedom and prosperity but the Regs of this world, from Malalai Joya to a whole host of diasporic armchair patriots, refuse to admit that since 2001 Afghanistan has indeed improved a great deal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/06/progress-in-afghanistan

[Guest American Woman]

Thank you AM, It is an up hill battle trying to convince anyone of the good that was done in Afghanistan.

You're most welcome. As I said, the thanks goes to you and the rest of the troops who devoted part of their lives and time to improving lives in Afghanistan. I think, unfortunately, some want to see failure, and that's what you are up against. It's got to be frustrating, but then, knowing the good that's been done must really make you feel good.

[dre]

Thank you AM, It is an up hill battle trying to convince anyone of the good that was done in Afghanistan.

I never said good wasnt done. I explained what is almost universally regarded as the criteria to use when considering if a project is a success or a failure.

In the case of the mission in Afghanistan it was supposed to be a quick cheap missions to catch OBL and overthrow the Taliban. It turned into a multi trillion dollar nation building project that has lasted for well over a decade, killed many thousand of NATO troops, and untold Afghanis. And the plan now has regressed to negotiating with the Taliban because it appears that we dont have the where-with-all to really irradicate them.

Thats not a success, its a monumental cluster-phuck of epic proportions. Its true that there are some positive results, and I hope we see a lot more. But that doesnt change the fact that the origional plan/project, in the manner it was concieved was a success.

Edited July 5, 2013 by dre

[Army Guy]

Thats just it, this is not some construction project down town, that a costing program can be applied to. This was rebuilding a entire nation that was subjected to 30 plus years of war.

NATO knew it would not be a quick mission, removing the taliban for power was the easy part, they also knew that wiping out the entire idea behind the taliban would take generations. A quick look at history will confirm that is the case with most large conflicts. And in order to move on, something needed to be done with the country, a new government that would bind the nation together plus other projects IE the infra structure etc....and the security problem. 65 million people live in Afghanistan, with a couple thousand that are convinced they should be free to impose their beliefs by force on millions.

So while the orginal mission was to remove the Taliban , capture OBL it would morph into a nation rebuilding mission. which is the 3 rd block of warfare, as you want to ensure that the lives lost, funding spent was not for nothing and another verision of the taliban poped up in it's place.

The idea of negotiating with the taliban is the result of years of fighting, trying to put this terrorist action into the history books. A while i'm not a fan of it, i don't have to live there day after day fearing that going to the market might be my last because of some bomber....

What the taliban know is it will never be as it once was....the Afghan people are not willing to let that happen....as much as they are not fussy with NATO, they DO NOT WANT to go back to Taliban rule...

There has been alot of concern on what will happen to Afghan after NATO leaves, most say the Taliban will roll in and take over again, i don't think so, As much as the people hate the ongoing corruption they don't want the taliban back in power. Afghan military forces have been fighting this battle by NATO rules, and once they leave they're hands will be untied to hunt these scumbags down once and for all. The only hitch is Pakistan and what they will do, and if NATO can keep them in check then i think everything will work itself out.

[Topaz]

I was watching the BBC and they were interviewing the Finance Minister there, and he said that Afghanistan will come ahead with its mining and oil and they WILL sell it to countries that THEY want and he said it isn't necessarily the USA, when asked but did mention China and said its natural resources is worth trillions. So if peace comes/stays, maybe these people have a chance of a good life.

[Signals.Cpl]

Are you looking to hire anyone? Because I would absolutely love to work for someone like you. I could take 20 years to build your porch, and get a pack on the back because you can finally go out there and enjoy your morning coffee.

So basically what you are saying is that you are completely rejecting the idea of any sort of cost/benefit analysis here? If was worth forfeiting thousands of your fellow citizens lives, and permanently maiming many thousands of others, and spending trillions of dollars... Would it be worth twice that? Would it be worth three times that? Or as long as some girls get to go to schoose ANY cost in blood and treasure is a recipe for "success" in your mind?

And where is the difference though? The Us said we will go in and do x,y and z... they have so far completed the task and are pulling out.

To the fair I would say that to many of the 15,000,000 Afghan women it would be considered a success...

[Signals.Cpl]

Not so fast. Where would you draw the line where your child is concerned? When would you stop treatment, even as you see progress being made? At what point would you say "success isn't worth the cost," ie: my child walking again isn't worth the cost, and cut off treatment?

Answer that simple question and then we'll continue this discussion.

It's easy to draw a line when all is fine but many if not the vast majority of parents around the world would do literally anything for their children which means any answer you might receive next to useless...

[Signals.Cpl]

In the case of the mission in Afghanistan it was supposed to be a quick cheap missions to catch OBL and overthrow the Taliban. It turned into a multi trillion dollar nation building project that has lasted for well over a decade, killed many thousand of NATO troops, and untold Afghanis. And the plan now has regressed to negotiating with the Taliban because it appears that we dont have the where-with-all to really irradicate them.

At what point would you tell the people in concentration camps in Europe during world war two that it's just too expensive to save them? Or at what point do you tell the Rwanda's getting massacred that their lives are not worth our money? Would it be better to have 800,000 dead innocent Rwandan men, women and children or spend a ton of money and 5,000 dead soldiers? We all know the price the Belgian's were willing to pay, 10 dead paratroopers and they left with their tail between their legs, they left the mess they created, hell we know what price the rest of the world was willing to pay... nothing...

[dre]

At what point would you tell the people in concentration camps in Europe during world war two that it's just too expensive to save them? Or at what point do you tell the Rwanda's getting massacred that their lives are not worth our money? Would it be better to have 800,000 dead innocent Rwandan men, women and children or spend a ton of money and 5,000 dead soldiers? We all know the price the Belgian's were willing to pay, 10 dead paratroopers and they left with their tail between their legs, they left the mess they created, hell we know what price the rest of the world was willing to pay... nothing...

WW2 wasnt fought to free people from concentration camps. Countries entered the war once they realized that eventually their own sovereignty would be threatened. Europeans and Americans didnt do a damn thing when Germany started sacking its neighbors and rounding people up. They acted once it was clear there was a direct threat to themselves.

In a defensive war when the enemies tanks are rolling across your border its an ALL IN proposition. If you have to you fight until all your gold is gone, and every last person is dead.

That wasnt the case in Afghanistan. It was a piece of elective policy with specific goals. People were told it would be cheap, quick, and painless. It ended up taking twice as long as WW2 and costing trillions of dollars. It also did nothing to reduce the threat of terrorism, in fact according to the DIA the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in an increase in the threat level. There was also the assertion that once their was a western freindly government in Afghanistan the terrorists would have nowhere to hide... that did work out either.

Again... the fact that this policy was such an epic failure does not negate any good that has been done. But if you told Americans in 2001 that you were going to spend trillions of dollars, lose more US lives than were lost on 911, and permanently maime dozens of thousands of more Americans, so that Afghan girls can get an education Americans would have laughed in your face.

[Guest American Woman]

To the fair I would say that to many of the 15,000,000 Afghan women it would be considered a success...

Amen to that. And future generations ...... as their education benefits the world.

[Signals.Cpl]

WW2 wasnt fought to free people from concentration camps.

Yeah, and at some point they could have called it quits after they ensured that they were safe. Where was the threat to Canada?

Countries entered the war once they realized that eventually their own sovereignty would be threatened. Europeans and Americans didnt do a damn thing when Germany started sacking its neighbors and rounding people up. They acted once it was clear there was a direct threat to themselves.

And they could have just as easily beaten back the Germans, Italians and Japanese to previous national borders and called it a day but they didn't, they and by they I mean the American, undertook a massive and very expensive reconstruction effort postwar, admittedly there was some self preservation thrown in there.

In a defensive war when the enemies tanks are rolling across your border its an ALL IN proposition. If you have to you fight until all your gold is gone, and every last person is dead.

Then why was Canada involved? Where were the Tanks spilling through our borders?Why did Canada send more than a million of its young men and women to fight and die as well as waste all that money? I mean after all we were not in any direct danger in 1939 or anytime after that...

That wasnt the case in Afghanistan. It was a piece of elective policy with specific goals. People were told it would be cheap, quick, and painless. It ended up taking twice as long as WW2 and costing trillions of dollars. It also did nothing to reduce the threat of terrorism, in fact according to the DIA the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in an increase in the threat level. There was also the assertion that once their was a western freindly government in Afghanistan the terrorists would have nowhere to hide... that did work out either.

The situation changes, the specific goals changed and the cost and timeframe changed accordingly, at some point it becomes a no retreat position, if you pullout prematurely the entire country if not the region goes up in flames. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the point was to give them the tools to protect themselves and leave once they are able to stand on their own to feet.

Again though, its easy to call it failure from the comfort and safety of Canada, but many of the Afghans might disagree. As I pointed out before, how many times has the world turned a blind eye and let hundreds of thousands of people be slaughtered because it would cost too much... but by your logic Rwanda was an epic success...

Again... the fact that this policy was such an epic failure does not negate any good that has been done. But if you told Americans in 2001 that you were going to spend trillions of dollars, lose more US lives than were lost on 911, and permanently maime dozens of thousands of more Americans, so that Afghan girls can get an education Americans would have laughed in your face.

Education, rape becomes a crime, punishing honour killings, women become human beings rather than animals, Women in parliament, they can walk on the street without a male escort...I know its not as impressive and solving all of Afghanistan's problems and only needing two guys and a donkey but ultimately it was a success at least to the people there...

Edited July 7, 2013 by Signals.Cpl

[dre]

but ultimately it was a success at least to the people there...

Actually Iv seen polls from time to time, and people in Afghanistan are not big fans of the war either. THe "success" is modest compared to the massive suffering they endured, and the majority of people there have wanted the coalition gone since the day it arrived.

Youre not in any position to speak for them.

but by your logic Rwanda was an epic success...

I dunno... you cant judge whether it was a success or not unless you know what it was that we were trying to do there. You can say we had the wrong plan or did the wrong thing but thats a different subject.

Our mission in Ruwanda was to...

"ensuring the security of the capital city of Kigali; monitoring the ceasefire agreement, including establishment of an expanded demilitarized zone and demobilization procedures; monitoring the security situation during the final period of the transitional Government's mandate leading up to elections; assisting with mine-clearance; and assisting in the coordination of humanitarian assistance activities in conjunction with relief operations."^[

So to judge whether or not it was successful you would have to look at how well we achieved those specific goals...

[Scotty]

Amen to that. And future generations ...... as their education benefits the world.

Oh hardly. In a couple of years they'll be forbidden to work outside the house again as girls are banned from attending schools.

[WWWTT]

I never said good wasnt done. I explained what is almost universally regarded as the criteria to use when considering if a project is a success or a failure.

In the case of the mission in Afghanistan it was supposed to be a quick cheap missions to catch OBL and overthrow the Taliban. It turned into a multi trillion dollar nation building project that has lasted for well over a decade, killed many thousand of NATO troops, and untold Afghanis. And the plan now has regressed to negotiating with the Taliban because it appears that we dont have the where-with-all to really irradicate them.

Thats not a success, its a monumental cluster-phuck of epic proportions. Its true that there are some positive results, and I hope we see a lot more. But that doesnt change the fact that the origional plan/project, in the manner it was concieved was a success.

Actually,I would say you are going a little too far in giving credit in this comment.

Change in Afghanistan has to start with the people of Afghanistan!

Who is the US/NATO to dictate to the Afghanistan people how to live their lives and conduct their affairs?

Some here may now say that I am for the human right crimes happening there,but that's not the case.

In order for the human right conditions to improve,people who commit the crimes,or the demographic pool has to stand up and try to put an end to it.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

..... girls are banned from attending schools.

No they aren't.

[Scotty]

No they aren't.

I have no idea why you chose to edit my post in a way to deliberately mislead people into thinking I said something I didn't but it wasn't far enough back for you to get away with it.

[Guest American Woman]

I have no idea why you chose to edit my post in a way to deliberately mislead people into thinking I said something I didn't but it wasn't far enough back for you to get away with it.

I didn't "edit" your post to "deliberately mislead people" - I quoted the part of your post that I was responding to as I read it.

[cybercoma]

I didn't "edit" your post to "deliberately mislead people" - I quoted the part of your post that I was responding to as I read it.

He didn't say they were banned from school. His poor grammar notwithstanding he was prophesying that they will be in a couple of years.

[carepov]

..

To the fair I would say that to many of the 15,000,000 Afghan women it would be considered a success...

Amen to that. And future generations ...... as their education benefits the world.

Signals and AW, you are right, there have been some encouraging signs, and more progress can be found by comparing data from 1990-2000 to 2001-2013: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/AFG.html

However:

1. Are the gains sustainable? I hope so, but it is too early to tell.

2. At what cost? This is not a MasterCard commercial where reducing maternal mortality or increasing education to Afghan women is "priceless". How many more lives could have been improved if the resources spent on the war in Afghanistan were spent elsewhere? I noticed that neither of you responded to dre's question: "if the costs of the War were doubled/tripled would you still consider it a success?"

If we look only at the War in Afghanistan, I am with dre, the costs of the war (both in blood and money) far outweigh the benefits. However, the War on Terror needs to be evaluated as a whole. Perhaps the mistake in Afghanistan was actually Iraq? If the US did not invade Iraq in 2003 then perhaps the War in Afghanistan would have been a success? If this were the case, perhaps, the West would not have been so impotent towards Syria now?

[bush_cheney2004]

If the US did not invade Iraq in 2003 then perhaps the War in Afghanistan would have been a success? If this were the case, perhaps, the West would not have been so impotent towards Syria now?

This won't work as long as the U.S. is bearing most of the costs in blood and treasure. Accordingly, the U.S. gets to decide where it will spend such resources. The biggest failure would be to have done nothing at all in Afghanistan, regardless of how "cheap" that would have been.

[GostHacked]

I didn't "edit" your post to "deliberately mislead people" - I quoted the part of your post that I was responding to as I read it.

Then you read it wrong.

[carepov]

This won't work as long as the U.S. is bearing most of the costs in blood and treasure. Accordingly, the U.S. gets to decide where it will spend such resources.

Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. The USA deserves a great deal of credit and blame for the state of today's world.

The biggest failure would be to have done nothing at all in Afghanistan, regardless of how "cheap" that would have been.

I agree that some action was called for in Afghanistan after 9/11 - but I think that doing nothing would have been preferable to what actually took place in the War on Terror. Anyways, it is too early to judge - if we can ever judge. For example, what will the consequences be of the massive US debt? How many terrorist acts were prevented or caused by US actions?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. The USA deserves a great deal of credit and blame for the state of today's world.

That is America's choice and won't be decided by others who write checks with their mouths that they can't cash (e.g. Rwanda).

I agree that some action was called for in Afghanistan after 9/11 - but I think that doing nothing would have been preferable to what actually took place in the War on Terror. Anyways, it is too early to judge - if we can ever judge. For example, what will the consequences be of the massive US debt? How many terrorist acts were prevented or caused by US actions?

That's fine, but again, the domestic (political) expectation in the USA was quite different. Afghanistan was already a long file in U.S. foreign policy....President Clinton attacked training bases with cruise missiles and President Carter engaged the Soviet Union's occupation. If you recall, even Canada made a big deal about fulfilling its NATO member obligation for Afghanistan in lieu of invading Iraq.

Edited July 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004