Afghanistan poll

[poppa x]

I voted undecided.
It's way too complex for me to understand.
I suspect it's a lot more than simply trying to control the Taliban and their effect on the local population, especially women.
As some-one said, it's about an entire culture, or what I'd call mindset.
And this being the case, it requires smarter minds than mine to come to grips with (a) what the problem is and (b) how to deal with it.
On the other hand, Livers is right. How else but meeting violence with violence do you respond to people whose sole motivation is to kill you?

 

[Streak]

I think our Government should develop a clear energy policy to get us off our reliance on foreign oil. Then these twits can go back to killing each other.

On the issue of tactics in Afghanistan, I think you need to look at the only recent example of successful dealing with an insurgency for a lead.

Malaysia. The British and Australians went in quietly and took them out. Yep, innocents got killed no doubt. But compare how many innocent people died there to the number killed in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam.

 

[scottyturnerscurse]

The job won't be finished in 50 years so why keep going for another 18 months? Pull them out now. It does more disservice to send two more rotations in than it does to pull the current ones out now.

The place has a better chance of getting better without foreign troops there.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I voted undecided.
It's way too complex for me to understand.
I suspect it's a lot more than simply trying to control the Taliban and their effect on the local population, especially women.
As some-one said, it's about an entire culture, or what I'd call mindset.
And this being the case, it requires smarter minds than mine to come to grips with (a) what the problem is and (b) how to deal with it.
On the other hand, Livers is right. How else but meeting violence with violence do you respond to people whose sole motivation is to kill you?

I suppose I challenge the notion that these are a people "whose sole motivation is to kill you". Many more of them have died, and in Iraq than died at The World Trade Towers. And while I feel genuine remorse for the people who died, that doesn't in my estimation justify the sanctioned (eventually, the western world was basically bullied by the US) genocide that has ensued in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arguing one evil against another doesn't seem compelling to me. I wonder if the Western world would have stumped up if it had been asked to donate over a trillion dollars to a campaign of aid and support for the middle east rather than a campaign of death and destruction? How many would have died? Would those people in those countries feel apprehension about the west? Imagine if the cost of funding the US war machine was instead used to build schools, hospitals, universities instead of new and interesting ways to kill people on mass?

 

[poppa x]

Agree Knighter but you're making lots of assumptions and "what ifs".

Some years ago on PRE (I can't bothered doing a search) I put forward a proposal to assist the Israel/Palestine issue.
In this region their mutual hatred of each other goes back more than 1,000 years.
How do you change this attitude? IMO an agreement on a piece of paper is worthless. The hatred is too ingrained for the masses to accept that a bit of paper changes everything.
So I came up with the Poppa Plan.

If Australia built 6 Secondary Schools with Dormitory facilities - one per State - with provision for 500 students in each College, we'd have 3,000 students.
Starting in the first year of secondary school, we invite equal numbers of Palestinians and Israelis to come and be educated and fed and housed - free of charge.
In the first year, we'd have 500 students, building up to 3,000 by the time the Year 7's reach Year 12.
We'd pay an annual air fare for parents to come visit, and an annual air fare for the kids to take a trip home.
The kids would be given what I'd a call a 50/50 education. 50% would be their typical Israeli or Palestinan Education and 50% a "normal" non religous education the same as Aussie kids get.

By learning, living and socialising together, I'd hope the kids would come to the realisation that the "other mob" aren't monsters. Some may even become good friends.

Now, if each Western Country - USA, Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, etc did the same thing on a pro rata per capita basis, we'd have large numbers of young people from Palestine and Israel all learning side by side.

Over time, and I'm talking many generations, because we'd have to keep this up for 50 years or more, then these educated young people become the future leaders in their respective countries. They'd be politicians, business leaders, community leaders, etc and their joint experiences in Secondary College may help guide their decision making and opinions on those people "on the other side".

Expensive? Yes.
But maybe cheaper than war.

Can this be applied to Iraq or Afghanistan.
I honestly don't know, but it is worth discussing.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Agree Knighter but you're making lots of assumptions and "what ifs".

Some years ago on PRE (I can't bothered doing a search) I put forward a proposal to assist the Israel/Palestine issue.
In this region their mutual hatred of each other goes back more than 1,000 years.
How do you change this attitude? IMO an agreement on a piece of paper is worthless. The hatred is too ingrained for the masses to accept that a bit of paper changes everything.
So I came up with the Poppa Plan.

If Australia built 6 Secondary Schools with Dormitory facilities - one per State - with provision for 500 students in each College, we'd have 3,000 students.
Starting in the first year of secondary school, we invite equal numbers of Palestinians and Israelis to come and be educated and fed and housed - free of charge.
In the first year, we'd have 500 students, building up to 3,000 by the time the Year 7's reach Year 12.
We'd pay an annual air fare for parents to come visit, and an annual air fare for the kids to take a trip home.
The kids would be given what I'd a call a 50/50 education. 50% would be their typical Israeli or Palestinan Education and 50% a "normal" non religous education the same as Aussie kids get.

By learning, living and socialising together, I'd hope the kids would come to the realisation that the "other mob" aren't monsters. Some may even become good friends.

Now, if each Western Country - USA, Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, etc did the same thing on a pro rata per capita basis, we'd have large numbers of young people from Palestine and Israel all learning side by side.

Over time, and I'm talking many generations, because we'd have to keep this up for 50 years or more, then these educated young people become the future leaders in their respective countries. They'd be politicians, business leaders, community leaders, etc and their joint experiences in Secondary College may help guide their decision making and opinions on those people "on the other side".

Expensive? Yes.
But maybe cheaper than war.

Can this be applied to Iraq or Afghanistan.
I honestly don't know, but it is worth discussing.

I couldn't agree more Poppa. I bloody love the Poppa Plan. I don't imagine I'm going to solve generational issues in a couple of pages of discussion on the other side of the globe. What bothers me I suppose is that it seems "easier" from a diplomatic political point of view to appropriate unimaginable sums of money for a deadly and devisive war. While it is equally unimaginable, it would seem, to spend a fraction of that trying avoid said war.

 

[Rosy]

I couldn't agree more Poppa. I bloody love the Poppa Plan.

Vote 1 Poppa x for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Rfc4Ever]

The place has a better chance of getting better without foreign troops there.

It is better because of the work the international soldiers have done over there in recent history.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

It is better because of the work the international soldiers have done over there in recent history.

That may well be true but what other methods have been tried? How can we know that the ONLY way to "help" was to blow them to kingdom come and kill them in their tens of thousands? I question the idea that military violence is ever a solution and I don't see any evidence for it in Iraq.or.Afghanistan. And I certainly don't see anyone discussing what could have been achieved with same money spent not killing people.

 

[Rosy]

It is better because of the work the international soldiers have done over there in recent history.

Could you give some warts and all examples for those of us who plead ignorance please Skillz.

 

[scottyturnerscurse]

It is better because of the work the international soldiers have done over there in recent history.

The Russians did a lot better. They invested in infrastructure and much of it remains today. The international community's only major infrastructure project was refurbishing, and in some places, building, a ring road around the country, most of which is too now too dangerous to travel around. They also invested a few hundred million in the Kajaki dam, which doesn't work. Ditto the Salma dam project. And let's not forget the Dahla dam near Kandahar. A few hundred million spent on cleaning a few irrigation ditches.

Australia's contribution has been to make a multi-millionaire out of an illiterate well-digger, who runs the drug trade in Uruzgan, and who uses Australian forces to knock-off his rivals. Who better to endorse as the police chief?

And when we leave that backwater province, the lasting benefit to the community will be the timber structures of the base being used as firewood as the warring tribes, neither of which are the Taliban, go back to biffo among themselves.

Feel for the troops, the Aussies who are among the best there, but it's a crappy mission.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The Russians did a lot better. They invested in infrastructure and much of it remains today. The international community's only major infrastructure project was refurbishing, and in some places, building, a ring road around the country, most of which is too now too dangerous to travel around. They also invested a few hundred million in the Kajaki dam, which doesn't work. Ditto the Salma dam project. And let's not forget the Dahla dam near Kandahar. A few hundred million spent on cleaning a few irrigation ditches.

Australia's contribution has been to make a multi-millionaire out of an illiterate well-digger, who runs the drug trade in Uruzgan, and who uses Australian forces to knock-off his rivals. Who better to endorse as the police chief?

And when we leave that backwater province, the lasting benefit to the community will be the timber structures of the base being used as firewood as the warring tribes, neither of which are the Taliban, go back to biffo among themselves.

Feel for the troops, the Aussies who are among the best there, but it's a crappy mission.

Unfortunately I agree with you about what will happen when the west finally leaves. The spin is going to be of a type I don't think we've seen.

 

[scottyturnerscurse]

The spin is quite easy to predict. "We gave the Afghans a chance and they blew it." Which, to the West's credit, is partially true.

 

[Rosy]

I voted no.

But a very worthwhile topic.

As a soldier, who has mates over there, mates about to go, and been a mate of some killed and injured, I say no, as the job isn't finished, and to walk away now would mean there lives lost, or injuries were for little.

A sad day yesterday.

RIP buddies.

Considering we're pulling out now I'd be interested to know if you consider the job is finished now and what we've achieved in our time there.

 

[Azza]

Soldiers thrown into these sorts of messes HAVE to develop emotional commitment to the cause. They have to find meaning in the death and injury of their mates. To pull out without the aims being completed needs to be fully justified against why we decided to get into the war to start with and why we weren't successful.

That's one of the reasons that the politicians who commit troops to war have to have a clear idea of what they're trying to achieve and a reasonable belief that it can be successful. Relying for this assessment on an ally with it's own internal political imperatives is simply not good enough.

If that sounds politically naive, and people think it's reasonable to go to war simply for the sake of an alliance, then fair enough. We should be realistic about what we're buying with our soldiers lives, and it's not improvement in Afghanistan.

 

[MD Jazz]

The Taliban have apparently taken back all the major cities in north afghanistan. The US and Aussie troops being sent back in to evacuate embassy staff in Kabul. You feel for the innocent caught up in this conflict. A return to hardline Islamic rule doesn’t bode well for women.

 

[tigerman]

Apart from the rights and wrongs on whether troops should've been in Afghanistan the fist place, why did the allies withdraw/retreat without taking all the interpreters and aids etc with them.

 

[Ridley]

Not sure what the point was. 20 years of conflict and the country seems to be in the exact same position as when it started. The Taliban looks like they will have control of the country in a short period.

It’s all been for nought.

 

[eZyT]

what a monumental *smile* up.

the only winners will be old white rich western politicians with defence contracts.

 

[artball]

It's appalling the interpreters, aides, etc weren't given help to resettle. Most of them wanted to leave because they knew what was coming.
Afghanistan has had centuries of conflict not just the 2 decades since 9/11. Prior to that it was the Russians and they lost. The first Anglo/Afghan war was in 1840 and it really hasn't stopped.
Man, go back to Alexander and later Ghengis Kahn. They know what invasion means, it's in the soil.
It's a shame that 'proper help' isn't.