U.S.' failure in Afghanistan

[Guest American Woman]

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?

Education for Afghan girls is priceless. As a woman who lives in a country where women have the same rights as men, as a woman who is a mother of daughters, it most definitely is priceless; it's something I never take for granted. I think about other countries where my life would be so different, and it is priceless - and I don't need any man to tell me differently.

Funny, though, as you say it's not a Mastercard commercial where we can say such things are priceless - you go on to say we have to look at the cost, including monetarily. You say we have to put a price tag on it to determine if it was successful. Sorry. You can't have it both ways.

At any rate, women deserve the same rights as men. They do not deserve to live in a society that demeans them and where they are subject to violence. I will never judge the "success" of such things in terms of dollars and cents. Educate this generation, and that will be passed on to future generations. How does one put a price on that?

[carepov]

Education for Afghan girls is priceless. As a woman who lives in a country where women have the same rights as men, as a woman who is a mother of daughters, it most definitely is priceless; it's something I never take for granted. I think about other countries where my life would be so different, and it is priceless - and I don't need any man to tell me differently.

Funny, though, as you say it's not a Mastercard commercial where we can say such things are priceless - you go on to say we have to look at the cost, including monetarily. You say we have to put a price tag on it to determine if it was successful. Sorry. You can't have it both ways.

At any rate, women deserve the same rights as men. They do not deserve to live in a society that demeans them and where they are subject to violence. I will never judge the "success" of such things in terms of dollars and cents. Educate this generation, and that will be passed on to future generations. How does one put a price on that?

No, I think that you are misunderstanding me, try looking at it this way:

Let's say for the same cost as educating 15,000,000 girls in Afghanistan we could have educated 150,000,000 girls in other countries. You are partially correct in saying that the war was a success for Afghan girls and society (IF the Taleban doesn't regain power and erase all the gains) but what I am saying is that the War was a failure for the 150,000,000 girls that were neglected and their future generations.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... but what I am saying is that the War was a failure for the 150,000,000 girls that were neglected and their future generations.

But that isn't true, as any "human rights" wonk will tell you that gains made anywhere advances the effort for all. Afghan women will likely become examples and leaders for women's rights, with one recent example in the media (Malala Yousafzai), who was shot in the head by the Taliban.

[carepov]

But that isn't true, as any "human rights" wonk will tell you that gains made anywhere advances the effort for all. Afghan women will likely become examples and leaders for women's rights, with one recent example in the media (Malala Yousafzai), who was shot in the head by the Taliban.

No, your point only strengthens mine. I am saying that we could have had strong, sustainable gains for 150,000,000 women accross sevaral continents instead of the gains for 15,000,000 Afghan women that are at risk of vanishing. Imagine the examples and women leaders that could have been developed if all those ressources were not wasted on war!

[carepov]

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).

Yes, America has written many good cheques - but many have also been NSF (Somalia, Iraq, and perhaps Afghanistan). And now America is so bankrupt (politically and financially) that it cannot even pull out their chequebook without being mocked.

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.

I agree, again, my opinion is that America's biggest blunder in the War on Terror was Iraq.

[Guest American Woman]

No, I think that you are misunderstanding me, try looking at it this way:

Let's say for the same cost as educating 15,000,000 girls in Afghanistan we could have educated 150,000,000 girls in other countries.

Right now there's a real problem with the way girls/women are treated in Muslim countries. That is a problem that is affecting all of us, and it's starting to become an issue within our countries. Until the female populations are educated, until they are not subjected to violence, until they have the same rights as men, their education may be more costly in terms of dollars and cents per student, but there will likely be more return per dollar than there would be elsewhere - if you insist on looking at it in terms of dollars and cents.

You are partially correct in saying that the war was a success for Afghan girls and society (IF the Taleban doesn't regain power and erase all the gains) but what I am saying is that the War was a failure for the 150,000,000 girls that were neglected and their future generations.

That's like saying successfully treating one seriously ill child is really a failure because ten less seriously ill children could have been treated for the same cost.

Sometimes it's more expensive to treat those who are at greater risk.

[carepov]

Right now there's a real problem with the way girls/women are treated in Muslim countries. That is a problem that is affecting all of us, and it's starting to become an issue within our countries. Until the female populations are educated, until they are not subjected to violence, until they have the same rights as men, their education may be more costly in terms of dollars and cents per student, but there will likely be more return per dollar than there would be elsewhere - if you insist on looking at it in terms of dollars and cents.

Yes, you and I share same goals and give the same importance to educating women. If ressources were unlimmited then you would be correct and we should educate all women no matter the cost.

That's like saying successfully treating one seriously ill child is really a failure because ten less seriously ill children could have been treated for the same cost.

No, it's like saying "successfully" treating one child by giving them a 50% chance of surviving is actually a failure because ten children with the same illness could have been treated with close to 100% chance of surviving.

Sometimes it's more expensive to treat those who are at greater risk.

Agreed. But sometimes it isn't.

[Guest American Woman]

No, it's like saying "successfully" treating one child by giving them a 50% chance of surviving is actually a failure because ten children with the same illness could have been treated with close to 100% chance of surviving.

No, because it isn't "the same illness." When girls lack an education because it's prohibited, it affects the entire population, as well as entire future generations; and that's going to cost more to 'fix,' but unless it is fixed, the problem will likely grow, and spread. Sometimes there's more to be learned, too; girls in an environment such as Afghanistan need to learn that it isn't their lot in life to be a less worthy individual, that they should not be subjected to violence, that they are deserving of the same rights as men rather than being controlled by men. Not everyone knows this the way we do; if they are raised to believe differently, it will take education to change them.

So in my example, the child "more at risk" has much more to lose than the ten children at lesser risk. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is, WE get something out of educating girls in Afghanistan; the world gets something out of it. There would not be as big a payoff in that regard with educating girls elsewhere. Surely that has to figure into your monetary equation.

But to use the line of reasoning your are presenting, all research money should go to cancer research because the most people would be affected; if a cure were found for a disease that less people are affected by, therefore costing more money per person affected, it would be a failure.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, your point only strengthens mine. I am saying that we could have had strong, sustainable gains for 150,000,000 women accross sevaral continents instead of the gains for 15,000,000 Afghan women that are at risk of vanishing. Imagine the examples and women leaders that could have been developed if all those ressources were not wasted on war!

War is not necessarily a waste, particulary when it is required to facilitate gains in the first place. You can ask most NGO's how important security is to accomplishing humanitarian and economic missions. WW2 Europe sure as hell appreciated war materials just as much as powdered milk.

[carepov]

No, because it isn't "the same illness." When girls lack an education because it's prohibited, it affects the entire population, as well as entire future generations; and that's going to cost more to 'fix,' but unless it is fixed, the problem will likely grow, and spread. Sometimes there's more to be learned, too; girls in an environment such as Afghanistan need to learn that it isn't their lot in life to be a less worthy individual, that they should not be subjected to violence, that they are deserving of the same rights as men rather than being controlled by men. Not everyone knows this the way we do; if they are raised to believe differently, it will take education to change them.

So in my example, the child "more at risk" has much more to lose than the ten children at lesser risk. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is, WE get something out of educating girls in Afghanistan; the world gets something out of it. There would not be as big a payoff in that regard with educating girls elsewhere. Surely that has to figure into your monetary equation..

1. Well you may be right in your example, but remember you set out your example as a way of clarifying my position - your example is not my position. My position and claim is that the West, led by the US, could of and should have used the resources spent on the War on Terror to educate more women (perhaps ten times more) in other parts of the world where there is a similar societal illness of violence against women. Pakistan for example. Or Zimbabwe. Or Haiti. Or Burma. or all of them...

2. Remember, there have been improvements in Afghanistan, but we are not out of the woods. What if the Taleban retake power and begin to deny girls the right to education? What do we do then?

3. New point: where was the West between 1996 - 9/10/2001? Helping Afghan women was of no concern then, and AFAK was not an objective of the War on Terror.

But to use the line of reasoning your are presenting, all research money should go to cancer research because the most people would be affected; if a cure were found for a disease that less people are affected by, therefore costing more money per person affected, it would be a failure.

No that is not at all what my line of reasoning suggests. I suggest that we use resources (political, financial, etc..) wisely - and that is not what the US has done in its' war on terror. Maybe it was correct for the international community/NATO/US to invade Afghanistan - but not in the way that it did. 12 years of war - so many dead - so much suffering - so much opportunuity cost - so much money spent - not enough gains to justify.

[DogOnPorch]

War is not necessarily a waste, particulary when it is required to facilitate gains in the first place. You can ask most NGO's how important security is to accomplishing humanitarian and economic missions. WW2 Europe sure as hell appreciated war materials just as much as powdered milk.

It's yea olde fallacy of counting misses and forgetting hits. The planet would STILL be paying for WW2 if it wasn't for the generosity of the American people. As

more or less said...folks are always looking to the US with their hands out...but if the US is in a jam, they're expected to get out of trouble on their own...all while the world has a good laugh about their predicament. He wasn't going to take it anymore, if I recall.

American C-54 Candy Bomber during the Berlin Airlift.

Edited July 8, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[carepov]

War is not necessarily a waste, particulary when it is required to facilitate gains in the first place. You can ask most NGO's how important security is to accomplishing humanitarian and economic missions. WW2 Europe sure as hell appreciated war materials just as much as powdered milk.

Not necessarily, but a war lasting 12 years must be wasteful. Also, is Afghanistan now secure enough for NGO's?

Wars that do nothing to increase security - or even worse those that decrease security - are wasteful. There are many that fall into these categories.

Edited July 8, 2013 by carepov

[bush_cheney2004]

No that is not at all what my line of reasoning suggests. I suggest that we use resources (political, financial, etc..) wisely - and that is not what the US has done in its' war on terror. Maybe it was correct for the international community/NATO/US to invade Afghanistan - but not in the way that it did. 12 years of war - so many dead - so much suffering - so much opportunuity cost - so much money spent - not enough gains to justify.

The Americans had this debate amongst themselves, irrespective of international opinion, and decided to allocate the resources anyway. This is a common American practice, and option that many others simply do not have, so it it easy to dismiss it as "waste".

[bush_cheney2004]

Not necessarily, but a war lasting 12 years must be wasteful.

Wars that do nothing to increase security - or even worse those that decrease security - are wasteful. There are many that fall into these categories.

History says otherwise...the American nation would not even exist as it is without a long and costly war. The U.S. has come to be the most powerful nation on the planet largely through war and conflict, including a Civil War.

The British Empire went broke trying to maintain a sun that never set, but the Americans have a much bigger credit card limit. The U.K. finished paying off its WW2 debt to the U.S. in 2006.

Edited July 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[carepov]

The Americans had this debate amongst themselves, irrespective of international opinion, and decided to allocate the resources anyway. This is a common American practice, and option that many others simply do not have, so it it easy to dismiss it as "waste".

You are correct but this is besides the point. Are you saying that America has made no mistakes, has no regrets, and there are no lessons to be learned in fighting the war on terror?

[carepov]

History says otherwise...the American nation would not even exist as it is without a long and costly war. The U.S. has come to be the most powerful nation on the planet largely through war and conflict, including a Civil War.

Can you name a 12 year long war where any side "won"?

[bush_cheney2004]

Can you name a 12 year long war where any side "won"?

Of course...The Cold War....."my" war. The USSR ceased to exist. It is in the "dustbin of history".

Edited July 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Can you name a 12 year long war where any side "won"?

Food for thought. Perhaps this war wouldn't have lasted as long if we were all less concerned about Afghan casualties. Would you say that a shorter, more hard-hitting war would have been preferable? Deemed more 'successful?'

[carepov]

Food for thought. Perhaps this war wouldn't have lasted as long if we were all less concerned about Afghan casualties. Would you say that a shorter, more hard-hitting war would have been preferable? Deemed more 'successful?'

No, I have made it clear that the costs of war include finacial costs, political costs but especially the cost of all human suffering.

But perhaps if the USA did not invade Iraq in 2003 and instead focussed on Afghanistan the war would have been successful.

[carepov]

Of course...The Cold War....."my" war. The USSR ceased to exist. It is in the "dustbin of history".

Yes, of course. An interesting discussion would be: was the Cold War worth it? What were the benefits and the costs? What were the key moves and mistakes made by each side?

[Guest American Woman]

No, I have made it clear that the costs of war include finacial costs, political costs but especially the cost of all human suffering.

So wouldn't prolonging the war in an effort to diminish loss of civilian life matter more than the number of years? Why focus on the number of years, when other wars, which didn't last as long, had a higher death toll?

[Scotty]

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.

You did edit it to make it seem like I was stating a fact and not suggesting what is likely to happen in future. That is not only pretty damned dishonest but a violation of the rules.

[Guest American Woman]

You did edit it to make it seem like I was stating a fact and not suggesting what is likely to happen in future. That is not only pretty damned dishonest but a violation of the rules.

Oh, chill. I said I didn't "edit" it to "make it seem like" anything. I said I quoted the part of your post that I was responding to, as I had read it. Your post read to me as if you thought girls would be confined to their homes in the future because girls are banned from attending school. Sort of like how in spite of your claims, I will trim posts in the future as that's what the rules state we should do. See? One part is referring to the future, the other part is referring to the here and now. That's how your post read to me. You have a problem with it, report it.

[carepov]

So wouldn't prolonging the war in an effort to diminish loss of civilian life matter more than the number of years? Why focus on the number of years, when other wars, which didn't last as long, had a higher death toll?

Yes for a few posts I did focus on the number of years as an indicator of the total costs of the war. However my position is that for a war (or any action) to be declared successful, the total benefits (security, economic gain, humanitarian, or other benefits/objectives) must outweigh the total costs (primarily human suffering, political, financial, environmental, opportunity costs, etc...). It looks like you are revising you position and similarly beginning to factor in the costs of war when judging it's success, am I reading you correctly?

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, of course. An interesting discussion would be: was the Cold War worth it? What were the benefits and the costs? What were the key moves and mistakes made by each side?

It would be an interesting subject.