Post Conflict Afghanistan

My prediction of post conflict Afghanistan is that the yanks will hang around Afghanistan for a few years after the "pull-out" (read losing the war), try to influence (bully) the politics (as they are in Iraq), but largely be ignored by Afghans. In the meantime, Afghanistan will slowly (over a year or two) descend into civil war with the outcome of the Taliban taking over again. What happens after that is anybody's guess.

Whatever happens in Afghanistan after we "pull-out", there will be a lot of families wondering why they lost loved ones in Afghanistan.
Very largely agree with those sentiments. Many Afghan journalists have been talking of the Taliban biding its time, just waiting for the Wests withdrawal. Pakistan cannot/will not be able to do much to hinder them, as they cannot even control their NW frontier tribes now. It has been, along with the second invasion of Iraq, one of the most idiotic, mishandled attempts at regime change ever, costing us £billions & more importantly the lives of hundreds of our servicemen & the maiming of thousands more, creating yet more excuses for the fundamentalist Muslims to hate & attack us! Yet many of the moronic politicians & do gooders now agitate & want us to intervene in Syria to oust yet another allegedly brutal dictator, conveniently forgetting the continuing bloody fiasco post Saddam Hussein in Iraq where hundreds of thousands have been killed in sectarian/tribal violence which is continuing still. I'm sure most sensible Iraqi's miss the comparative security they had under his "brutal" regime. Despite all the usual suspects bleating on about bringing democracy to these savages it is a concept totally alien to their mind set, corruption & adherence to a dark ages religion which subjugates women is all they understand!
 
I do not think there will be an outright winner in Afghanistan. Certainly not the Taliban. The Taliban are what? Are who? A disparate grouping of people? Funded by who? Police one moment, farmer the next, then unemployed, back to police and then taliban.

Afghanistan will divide along ethnic tribal lines, funded by drugs. There will be periodic missile strikes against those who try to raise their game and the whole place will revert to the 1500s.

I have read reports about Kabul and an emerging feeling for freedom amongst the younger people of both sexes - that will simply be covered up as in Iran.

The West may use the place as a training ground but otherwise it will be a back water totally forgotten which only the Chinese will exploit.
 
The Chinese will keep a weather eye on the place and if things ever look like getting out of hand again, will flatten it.
 
T

Taffd

Guest
Very largely agree with those sentiments. Many Afghan journalists have been talking of the Taliban biding its time, just waiting for the Wests withdrawal. Pakistan cannot/will not be able to do much to hinder them, as they cannot even control their NW frontier tribes now. It has been, along with the second invasion of Iraq, one of the most idiotic, mishandled attempts at regime change ever, costing us £billions & more importantly the lives of hundreds of our servicemen & the maiming of thousands more, creating yet more excuses for the fundamentalist Muslims to hate & attack us! Yet many of the moronic politicians & do gooders now agitate & want us to intervene in Syria to oust yet another allegedly brutal dictator, conveniently forgetting the continuing bloody fiasco post Saddam Hussein in Iraq where hundreds of thousands have been killed in sectarian/tribal violence which is continuing still. I'm sure most sensible Iraqi's miss the comparative security they had under his "brutal" regime. Despite all the usual suspects bleating on about bringing democracy to these savages it is a concept totally alien to their mind set, corruption & adherence to a dark ages religion which subjugates women is all they understand!
Why is brutal stability better than a civil war/uprising/insurgency?
 
C

CivPlod

Guest
http://youtu.be/Urtiyp-G6jY

There will be people on here, jizzing at this line:

"And there's me in my slouch hat with my SLR and greens.
God help me, I was only nineteen."



Sent using the patented Telsascope and telsa coil by Nikola Telsa, from Mars.
 
Why is brutal stability better than a civil war/uprising/insurgency?
Despite the dogooders bleating, less people were killed by S H than have been killed since by the on going bombs & killings happening are now. A lot of Iraqi's interviewed since our intervention claim to have felt safer in the "bad old days" under SH. Sure if you were an opponent of him you were in for a rough time but the average person didn't fear a bomb or shooting in the market place or shops as they do now! Interesting you seem to feel that civil war/uprising/insurgencies when hundreds of thousands have been killed and are still being killed & maimed on a daily basis is safer than a brutal regime where the numbers were only in the tens of thousands and then normally only opponents of the regime. As I said its not what we in the west are used to in the main but "democracy" is a word that seems to have no meaning in that part of the world!
 
T

Taffd

Guest
Despite the dogooders bleating, less people were killed by S H than have been killed since by the on going bombs & killings happening are now. A lot of Iraqi's interviewed since our intervention claim to have felt safer in the "bad old days" under SH. Sure if you were an opponent of him you were in for a rough time but the average person didn't fear a bomb or shooting in the market place or shops as they do now! Interesting you seem to feel that civil war/uprising/insurgencies when hundreds of thousands have been killed and are still being killed & maimed on a daily basis is safer than a brutal regime where the numbers were only in the tens of thousands and then normally only opponents of the regime. As I said its not what we in the west are used to in the main but "democracy" is a word that seems to have no meaning in that part of the world!
I'm sure less people would have been killed if we'd have let that nice Mr Hitler have his own way from the off; not really an argument I consider holds water.

We, the west, aren't busy killing 'average' Iraqis, they're killing each other, possibly in order to gain their own brand of control over the country. A civil war seems the obvious course of action when they are unable to peacefully negotiate a solution to all their perceived problems. It's obviously what they want. After all, there was no necessity to kick off after Sadaam was deposed.

All that aside, I made no mention of any situation being safer - you're making shit up.

What I did was ask a question: why is brutal stability better than civil war/uprising/insurgency?

Are you arguing that peoples should live under brutal dictatorships because of possible consequences should they choose a different mode of governance?
 

alib

LE
...
Are you arguing that peoples should live under brutal dictatorships because of possible consequences should they choose a different mode of governance?
Hobbes would have said yes, a lot of folk after a couple of years of being liberated tend to agree with him. It's not nice but that's often the sad reality of interventions. Those that rush to action in such things need to remember the likely consequences and not shirk blame when it goes badly wrong and they scurry away to.

In Afghanistan the 40th Army intervened to prop up what the Kremlin saw as the inevitable progress of history in the face of a surge of Islamo-Fascist reaction. That was back in 79. The place hasn't seen peace since.
 
I'm sure less people would have been killed if we'd have let that nice Mr Hitler have his own way from the off; not really an argument I consider holds water.
Less people might have died considering around 100 million were killed during WWII. That said only less would have died if most countries accepted the Nazi regime. It is likely insurgency on a mass scale would have followed in most countries that would have capitulated.

But still, If all counties that took Hitlers fancy did capitulate without insurgency the death toll overall probably would have been much lower than the final outcome.

At least we'd have all been driving around in decent cars and had really ally uniforms!
 
T

Taffd

Guest
Please note, I was not arguing for or against intervention, nor commenting on it, I merely questioned whether it was 'better' to live under a brutal dictatorship, or not. I was interested in others' opinions.

I wonder if all these Iraqis, Afghanis etc actually think - 'I wish we were living under a brutal dictatorship'.
 
I wonder if all these Iraqis, Afghanis etc actually think - 'I wish we were living under a brutal dictatorship'.
I suppose it depends whether they were likely to be at the receiving end of the regimes brutality or not. A dictatorship is likely to only quash those who rebel against its regime or those who they suspect.

I'm of the opinion that Iraq was a much better place to live before we fcuked it up. Likewise I believe Helmand was a much better place to live before we fcuked it up.
 
The place is just going to go tits up. NATO should just cut all ties with the place just after the 2014 pull out of combat troops. We've given them 12 years to help themselves, nevermind the amount of lives lost. I reckon the North may revert into some sort of Northern Alliance again to prevent the Taliban taking control of the entire Country.
 

ACAB

LE
Afghanistan post conflict will quickly revert to Afghanistan pre conflict. A dirty, hot, sandy shit hole rooted in the 7th Century.

If only Genghis Khan was alive today!
 

ehwhat

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
"In Afghanistan the 40th Army intervened to prop up what the Kremlin saw as the inevitable progress of history in the face of a surge of Islamo-Fascist reaction. That was back in 79. The place hasn't seen peace since."

Friendly emmendation: The Russians attempted to slow down the regime shifts and get the cadres to pay attention to the regional discomfort and stop knocking each other off as a sport. When this failed they took the direct approach. There was significant debate within their ranks.
 

alib

LE
Less people might have died considering around 100 million were killed during WWII. That said only less would have died if most countries accepted the Nazi regime. It is likely insurgency on a mass scale would have followed in most countries that would have capitulated.

But still, If all counties that took Hitlers fancy did capitulate without insurgency the death toll overall probably would have been much lower than the final outcome.

At least we'd have all been driving around in decent cars and had really ally uniforms!
In an alternative history, The Man In The High Castle by P.K.Dick, the US has made peace with the Nazis, no one remembers the Jews but everybody thinks what the Nazis got up to in Africa after they conquered it was really atrocious. This may not be far wrong as an assessment of the Nazi appetite for racial genocide. I read the initial Nazi war plan involved wiping out 150 million Slavs to clear living space for sturdy Aryan farmers but the Red Army sort of got in the way and they got distracted by the Jewish threat to racial purity. The Papists were to be dealt with after the war.

There is something unique about the Nazi mindset. Not every enemy is as grandiosely psychotic as Hitler and his chums. Most dictators simply focus on stability and regime survival. The sociopathic Stalin finally kills more people but over a much longer time and driven by not always baseless paranoia. He actually sat out a potentially mutually genocidal nuclear stand off with the West in a way that's hard to imagine Adolf ever doing. Mao was much the same.

Saddam really isn't in the same class. His greatest crime is certainly his opportunistic war of aggression against revolutionary Iran, which we were fairly happy about at the time. We even did our best to obscure his use of chemical weapons against Iran. He was foolish enough to mess with our oil supplies is what marked his card.

There's no simple rule about the validity of interventions. The leap into war 1914 is a counter example to appeasement in the late 1930s. All that can be said is the first is a far more common mistake in the game of states than the latter. We should think carefully about killing, we go to war far to hastily and often regret it.
 
The West may use the place as a training ground but otherwise it will be a back water totally forgotten which only the Chinese will exploit.
I would suggest there's going to be a Great Game played by India, China, Pakistan and possibly Russia all over Afghanistan for the next few decades.
 

Latest Threads

Top