Afghanistan, and a path not taken?

Author: Sum1hugme

Posts

Total: 13
Topic's author
#1
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
  America went into Afghanistan backing the losing side of the civil war. When the new government was put into place though, we were backing a government that didn't have the ability to impose it's monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force. It was common knowledge that once you were five miles outside of Kabul, it was total lawlessness. America was getting shaken down in convoy protection rackets, and we hit a point where we were pumping 300 million dollars a day into this war, which we were fighting mostly with hired mercenaries like G4S security. 

  I propose that the US should have pursued a bipartisan government with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance prior to pulling out of the country. 
#2
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,575
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
" I propose that the US should have pursued a bipartisan government "

we DID, that is what the trump deal was
#3
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
the afghans were trained and raised up for 20 years, and provided billions in US supplies. It's clear, they want to be ran by the taliban. It's why the second the Americans left, most of the soldiers switched sides. 

This is the country the afghan people want. Let them have it. 
Topic's author
#4
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
  No I believe the trump deal was to allow for a safe withdrawal of American troops from the region and a return of Taliban prisoners. It had nothing to do with establishing a bipartisan government since america was continuing to back afghan government financially and with companies like G4S.
Topic's author
#5
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Wylted
  Corruption in the Afghani brass is not the same as wanting to be ruled by the Taliban. The women of Afghanistan remember the 90's. Also, there are currently about 15,000 Americans stranded there that is the duty of our government to protect.
#6
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,575
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
No I believe the trump deal was to allow for a safe withdrawal of American troops from the region and a return of Taliban prisoners. It had nothing to do with establishing a bipartisan government since america was continuing to back afghan government financially and with companies like G4S.


it was supposed to open talks between the two combatants
#7
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
Corruption in the Afghani brass is not the same as wanting to be ruled by the Taliban. The women of Afghanistan remember the 90's. Also, there are currently about 15,000 Americans stranded there that is the duty of our government to protect.
15k globohomo people who were warned that America was pulling out, but decided to lollygag.  This is evolution 
#8
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
You're proposing a compromise between fundamentalists and westernized Afghans. I think the fundamentalists believes less in democracy, with only a fraction of the conservative Ulama considering democracy a valid substitute for the caliphate. To be honest, this sounds good on paper but the Taliban will just consider the northern alliance as satanic. The majority of muslims, if given the chance, will revive the caliphate over the preservation of democracy. This belief is even more pronounced in islamist factions. I'd be more open to your proposal if the Taliban had no extremist backgrounds.
Topic's author
#9
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Wylted
This is evolution
Edgy.
#10
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
 America went into Afghanistan backing the losing side of the civil war. When the new government was put into place though, we were backing a government that didn't have the ability to impose it's monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force. It was common knowledge that once you were five miles outside of Kabul, it was total lawlessness. America was getting shaken down in convoy protection rackets, and we hit a point where we were pumping 300 million dollars a day into this war, which we were fighting mostly with hired mercenaries like G4S security. 

  I propose that the US should have pursued a bipartisan government with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance prior to pulling out of the country. 
I propose that the Doctrine of Sovereignty that has underpinned all international law since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia should have been respected in Afghanistan in 2001 and every year thereafter.  That doctrine states "that each nation-state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country’s domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law."

In the question of the government of Afghanistan the US not only has no legal rights or responsibilities any assertion of such a right is a violation of international law. 

 

Topic's author
#11
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@oromagi
In the event of a civil war, as was in Afghanistan, whose sovereignty should take precedence? And at what point do humanitarian concerns about civilian welfare factor into the equation? 
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,292
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
Afghanistan was an ill thought out revenge thing, in response to the Twin Towers attack.

No lessons learned from history, and so doomed to fail.

Unfortunately the lick arse Brit government of the day, dragged us into the mess too.


And those tough brave boys went into Pakistan and killed that Saudi bloke.

You know......The one that was previously their best mate, when the Soviets were vainly attempting to subdue those tenacious Afghan bandits.

Here we are Osama, have a few rocket launchers and see if you can hit some commi bastards.


Politics hey?
#13
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
-->@oromagi
In the event of a civil war, as was in Afghanistan, whose sovereignty should take precedence?
The victor, as always.

And at what point do humanitarian concerns about civilian welfare factor into the equation? 
We should always remember our obligations to the brotherhood of man but there's no level of human misery that magically justifies interference.  Threats to our own sovereignty justify interference as was true in 2001 but the assumption of any responsibility for another nation's destiny is always a mistake.  There's a thousand different ways we can legitimately favor sides or encourage particular outcomes but outsiders have no business defining Afghanistan's government or making their choices for them.