[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Trick or Trick with President Karzai (click to view)
Date: October 29, 2010

I can remember, not too long after 9-11, when the Taliban was overthrown and Hamid Karzai became the new president of Afghanistan. How much we all loved him! He seemed so calm and moderate and wise and avuncular... not at all like all those other Middle Eastern presidents. And indeed, in the years since his inauguration, the west has poured enormous amounts of money into his regime precisely because we assumed he was not like all those other guys, and actually possessed the capacity to turn his country into something better than just another swamp of corruption, tyranny, and religious fanaticism.

The bloom has long since wilted off that rose, however. In the last couple of years Karzai has proven himself to be just as unpleasant as many other western-backed third-world tinpots of years past. His "re-election" last year was universally dismissed as a crooked farce, and US intelligence reports continue to surface revealing just how brazenly Karzai's inner clique has personally enriched itself through bribes and embezzlement — at the expense of Afgani social programs and infrastructure. The independence of the shaky Afghan judicial system is likewise routinely undermined to ensure the President's buddies are never held accountable for their actions, with internal probes similarly either stalled or sabotaged. Severely undermining the international war on drugs, Karzai's also turned a blind eye to the restoration of his country's vile opium industry — again largely because many of his pals are profiting from it.

Even worse from a strategic perspective, the Karzai regime  is now said to be actively courting Taliban support, as part of the President's own rouge scheme to end the war. Welcoming Taliban influence into the Afghan government as part of some ad-hoc peace arrangement of course directly contradicts the whole supposed point of Karzai's rule in the first place, which, we may remember, was to keep Islamic extremists far, far away from the levers of state power. But it's not just domestic extremists he is sucking up to. In a particularly lurid report in the New York Times this week, Karzai was also revealed as a leader who has been eager to play footsie with Ahmadinejad's Iran, and has accepted literal "bags of money" from the dictatorship in exchange for God-knows-what.

During the Cold War, one of the great dilemmas of the western world was how much support should be given to corrupt, dictatorial regimes simply on the basis that they were anti-communist. Today, a similar dilemma seems to be playing out as we confront the Muslim world, and struggle to decide whether a government like Karzai's possesses any moral basis to deserve our sympathy and support. After all, the premise of the war in Afghanistan is to prove that Afghanis have a choice, and that the goal of a pluralistic, democratic society is entirely possible within their borders. If the Afghan government isn't willing to model those values, however, then it's not much of a mystery why fewer and fewer Afghanis — and Americans and Canadians — feel any eagerness to fight in their defense. You can only battle so long in the name of abstract ideals before you expect someone to actually carry them out.

[Marcus_Ozius]

Self determination is the right of every country. How dare western powers go in and tell other peoples how to run their lives! If we let these people rule themselves according to their own ways they'll take much better care of themselves than their imperialist overlords.
Oh...they're killing each other...and trying to kill us...
Every nation is a part of the world as a whole and needs to be treated as a part of a community! How dare we not intervene when we have the money and power to do so! Other nations need to intervene until they learn to manage things for themselves.
Oh...they're still killing each other...and successfully killing us...
Self determination is the right of every country. How dare western powers go in and tell other peoples how to run their lives! If we let these people rule themselves according to their own ways they'll take much better care of themselves than their imperialist overlords.
Oh...they're killing each other...and trying to kill us...

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[BartSimpson]

Marcus, to a certain degree I agree with you. The whole notion of turning the Afghans into peaceful democracy-loving folks is a delusion. The Afghans are so bad that their neighbors merely seek to keep them contained.

The place has been a meat grinder going back to the days of Alexander and nothing has, or will, change there. All you can do is contain them.

[Taospark]

Both assessments are off the mark. Afghanistan has functioned as a feudal agriculture-based region of loosely knit tribes and villages for centuries now with no major upheaval - except from the outside world.

Western democracy, and indeed radical Islam, were incompatible with the area because the people simply had no need for such trappings or organization. It was only the Russian invasion (and ours) that pushed Afghanis into the arms of fundamentalists just like with Iran.

And just like Iran, they were doing just fine organically becoming more progressive until an outside power decided that wasn't a change they liked. Cut a deal for their trillion dollar mineral horde, modernize the cities only, and let the rest of the nation decide when they want to modernize and not before.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Well ummm couldn't the coalition forces start things off by say..firebombing the poppy fields???
I mean what kind of fucking putzes are we if we know this is going on and do nothing to interdict it??

[Kjorteo]

The fact that the people behind those fields (and basically everything else) are ostensibly on our side makes the situation somewhat more complicated. If we take an all guns blazing approach to take out Karzai's poppy fields and such... then what? We fight a two-pronged war against Afghanistan's anti-government insurgents and their actual government? If our goal is to turn Afghanistan into one of those countries that are ruled by whatever faction has the latest conquest at the time, the "government" being merely one of about sixteen against the various warlords and such, then that is a good strategy. Or perhaps we could just start over at the "find a group of rebels we happen to like, make friends, topple the current government" phase--that worked out pretty well for us last time, after all.

Not that Karzai himself is making it any easier to figure out what our win condition even is anymore, what with his actively courting Taliban support and all--the opposition of which, as JJ pointed out, was sort of the entire reason we invaded in the first place.

[Murray_Smith]

Two things I feel are worth pointing out.

Newsbot wrote:

Even worse from a strategic perspective, the Karzai regime  is now said to be actively courting Taliban support, as part of the President's own rouge scheme to end the war.

It's spelled "rogue". You're implying that French Communists are involved.

BartSimpson wrote:

Marcus, to a certain degree I agree with you. The whole notion of turning the Afghans into peaceful democracy-loving folks is a delusion. The Afghans are so bad that their neighbors merely seek to keep them contained.

The place has been a meat grinder going back to the days of Alexander and nothing has, or will, change there. All you can do is contain them.

Christian Bale's character in Harsh Times referred to the place as "Shitcanistan". Recent events only reinforce that name for me.

[Psudo]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Newsbot wrote:

the President's own rouge scheme to end the war.

It's spelled "rogue". You're implying that French Communists are involved.

Or that cosmetics corporations are involved.

[Marcus_Ozius]

Taospark wrote:

Both assessments are off the mark. Afghanistan has functioned as a feudal agriculture-based region of loosely knit tribes and villages for centuries now with no major upheaval - except from the outside world.

Western democracy, and indeed radical Islam, were incompatible with the area because the people simply had no need for such trappings or organization. It was only the Russian invasion (and ours) that pushed Afghanis into the arms of fundamentalists just like with Iran.

And just like Iran, they were doing just fine organically becoming more progressive until an outside power decided that wasn't a change they liked. Cut a deal for their trillion dollar mineral horde, modernize the cities only, and let the rest of the nation decide when they want to modernize and not before.

So...if I understand this correctly, Afghanistan was doing fine in the stone age until outside forces conspired to...bring it out of the stone age?
I realize, of course, that I'm simplifying things, but I think it's worth analysis.

I've heard good things about pre Soviet Afghanistan, so I'll grant your point that things were doing well and liberalizing before the Soviets invaded because I don't know any better. Then you mention the U.S. invasion as contributing to pushing Afghanis into the arms of fundamentalist Islam. Wasn't the fact that they were already there part of the problem? I'm sure I'm not the only person who remembers the late 90's mass e-mail forwards about the plight of women in Afghanistan. If the Republicans were smart, they would have painted a feminist view of the war at home to shut down Democratic opposition. It would have made sense in 2001.

As for becoming more progressive...when? I don't seem to remember any indications that the Taliban was becoming more progressive. I seem to remember defacing of cultural monuments and the mutilation and murder of dissidents.

In summary: Afghanistan is a hell hole, was a hell hole, and will continue to be a hell hole in the future. Maybe you can blame the Soviets, but even that is doubtful. Sure, they made it worse, but I don't know of much evidence to say it was ever anything close to well off. I really liked J.J.'s talk about disillusionment with Iraq and the belief that people, if given the chance to govern themselves, would govern themselves well. Afghanistan either needs to be ruled over, or periodically culled. We either need to keep predators up there to keep it as a threat to itself and nobody else, or it needs to be run by an outside power. It's not capable of running itself.

[desertdude]

See thats the problem. The Afghans have never let anyone rule over them. From the armies of Alexander to the latest American coalition forces.

So what makes you think that if you leave they will treat anyone else any different. Be it Pakistan, China, Iran, Saudi. They will all be treated and looked upon as invaders.

Quote:

Then you mention the U.S. invasion as contributing to pushing Afghanis into the arms of fundamentalist Islam. Wasn't the fact that they were already there part of the problem?

The ordinary Afghani wasn't it was the ruling Taliban.

[Taospark]

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

So...if I understand this correctly, Afghanistan was doing fine in the stone age until outside forces conspired to...bring it out of the stone age?
I realize, of course, that I'm simplifying things, but I think it's worth analysis.

I've heard good things about pre Soviet Afghanistan, so I'll grant your point that things were doing well and liberalizing before the Soviets invaded because I don't know any better. Then you mention the U.S. invasion as contributing to pushing Afghanis into the arms of fundamentalist Islam. Wasn't the fact that they were already there part of the problem? I'm sure I'm not the only person who remembers the late 90's mass e-mail forwards about the plight of women in Afghanistan. If the Republicans were smart, they would have painted a feminist view of the war at home to shut down Democratic opposition. It would have made sense in 2001.

As for becoming more progressive...when? I don't seem to remember any indications that the Taliban was becoming more progressive. I seem to remember defacing of cultural monuments and the mutilation and murder of dissidents.

In summary: Afghanistan is a hell hole, was a hell hole, and will continue to be a hell hole in the future. Maybe you can blame the Soviets, but even that is doubtful. Sure, they made it worse, but I don't know of much evidence to say it was ever anything close to well off. I really liked J.J.'s talk about disillusionment with Iraq and the belief that people, if given the chance to govern themselves, would govern themselves well. Afghanistan either needs to be ruled over, or periodically culled. We either need to keep predators up there to keep it as a threat to itself and nobody else, or it needs to be run by an outside power. It's not capable of running itself.

You misunderstand. I was mirroring our support of the Shah in Iran with the Soviet invasion and support of a Communist regime in Afghanistan.

Both had the consequence, no matter how unintended, of creating a much more retrenched fundamentalist regime because the people there believed such a harsh measure was the only way to prevent outsider interference. Iran under Mossadeq was certainly not perfect, but it was modernizing at a pace its people were comfortable with until Eisenhower deemed him too communist and replaced him with a monarch.

Afghanistan has survived just fine without the need for what you so roughly described as culling. There are countless parts of the world where the people have been disorganized farming peoples and stayed to themselves for a very long time without any real incident, including the United States. Lest you forget, it is exactly the periodical interference which you support that the US, Pakistan, Iran, and Soviets all engaged in which changed Afghanistan into an actual player on the world stage in the first place. Without an external strawman to give them legitimacy, violent regimes lose strength and give way to democracy no matter how unstable just as they did in Africa.

[Psudo]

Taospark wrote:

Without an external strawman to give them legitimacy, violent regimes lose strength and give way to democracy no matter how unstable just as they did in Africa.

This whole sentence seems distorted. Is African-style democracy really a positive goal for Afghanistan? There are only a handful of respectable governments in Africa, and there are plenty of tinpot dictators and corrupt messes (perhaps most famously, Somalia and Rwanda). I'm not saying centuries of foreign interventionism have done the Afghans any good, but I don't imagine removing all foreign meddlers would magically make things better either.

Fundamental to the whole argument against foreign interventionism is the claim that the Afghan citizens continue to operate pretty much as they always have regardless of what foreign government tries to strong-arm them. Given this fundamental disinterest in government, why would they care enough to push for democratic reforms in domestic national government? The early American States resisted centralized control under the US Constitution, arguing it was no better than English tyranny. And they believed quite deeply and fundamentally in governmental involvement, reform, and even revolution in a way almost exactly opposite to the aggressive Afghan apathy.

[Marcus_Ozius]

desertdude wrote:

See thats the problem. The Afghans have never let anyone rule over them. From the armies of Alexander to the latest American coalition forces.

So what makes you think that if you leave they will treat anyone else any different. Be it Pakistan, China, Iran, Saudi. They will all be treated and looked upon as invaders.

Quote:

Then you mention the U.S. invasion as contributing to pushing Afghanis into the arms of fundamentalist Islam. Wasn't the fact that they were already there part of the problem?

The ordinary Afghani wasn't it was the ruling Taliban.

Firstly, the Afghans have, in fact, been ruled over. Repeatedly. Persians did it repeatedly, Alexander did, in fact, take Afghanistan even if the Seleucids lost it, various Indian states have done it, the Greco Bactrians did it. Also, let's not forget the Mongols, the Mongol successor states, and the Arab invasion that turned them from Hindu/Buddhist/Zorastrians into Muslims in the first place. You could argue that they drove each of these groups out, but firstly, that's misleading because most countries that have a long history have been conquered repeatedly (Egypt for instance) and besides that, these various invasions did, in fact, create the culture that is Afghanistan today. Besides, most invasions start out as invitations. Interior players become the puppets of exterior powers.
Your last point is a little muddled. "The ordinary Afghani wasn't in the ruling Taliban." No, no they weren't. Does that make them any less prone to radical Islam? Does that mean they did or did not support it? They certainly submitted to it calmly enough in most of the country.

[Marcus_Ozius]

Taospark wrote:

You misunderstand. I was mirroring our support of the Shah in Iran with the Soviet invasion and support of a Communist regime in Afghanistan.

Both had the consequence, no matter how unintended, of creating a much more retrenched fundamentalist regime because the people there believed such a harsh measure was the only way to prevent outsider interference. Iran under Mossadeq was certainly not perfect, but it was modernizing at a pace its people were comfortable with until Eisenhower deemed him too communist and replaced him with a monarch.

Afghanistan has survived just fine without the need for what you so roughly described as culling. There are countless parts of the world where the people have been disorganized farming peoples and stayed to themselves for a very long time without any real incident, including the United States. Lest you forget, it is exactly the periodical interference which you support that the US, Pakistan, Iran, and Soviets all engaged in which changed Afghanistan into an actual player on the world stage in the first place. Without an external strawman to give them legitimacy, violent regimes lose strength and give way to democracy no matter how unstable just as they did in Africa.

I don't know that I can agree that the adoption of fundamentalist Islam was a way of trying to throw out foreign intervention. Wasn't U.S. aid against the Soviets in favor of the fundamentalism muslims what brought them to power in the first place? Beyond that, aren't Iran and Pakistan major players within the Taliban? I think that the Iran coup isn't particularly applicable to the Afghanistan mess.

As for the culling, I'll grant that they have survived just fine without it assuming that we can define denying women medicine and education, inflicting torturous punishment for slight offenses, and denying basic freedoms as fine. I wholeheartedly agree. The difficulty is that in this day and age a few zealots have the power to do a lot more damage than before. Failed states used as training camps for international terrorism need to be prevented from being a threat.

As to removing the strawman...they'll find more straw. There will always be a foreign strong man. Maybe to change it up they'll have a domestic one. As an example of a dictator in search of a strawman and a wonderful example of the African countries you hold up would be Mugabe. He blames the British for everything. Including the hyperinflation. If Africa is your definition of stable, then please, by all means, live there. I'll not speak well of a country that I'd refuse to reside in, and this is coming from a guy who is moving to China in a week. I've set my bar pretty low.

[desertdude]

Marcus_Ozius wrote:

"The ordinary Afghani wasn't in the ruling Taliban." No, no they weren't. Does that make them any less prone to radical Islam? Does that mean they did or did not support it? They certainly submitted to it calmly enough in most of the country.

Any person under occupation or resisting an invasion is prone to religious or any other type of radicalisation. Even invaders and occupiers are.

The majority of ordinary Afghans never supported the taliban and many outright fought them, like Ahmed Shah Masood and the Northern Alliance.

They did intially welcome them although not all as the taliban did have to fight their way in many cities. But the ones who did welcome them in thought they were the good guys and the avg people just had enough of violence and just sought peace ( still true today )and thought the Taliban would provide them that.

Well they did keep their promise of peace but very soon people realised it was all a big mistake as the taliban started to show their hardline side.

As as for the first point I was mostly talking about modern history.