An armed society is a polite society. Let's find out...

Good, I think that this is the only way to make progress (having the locals work against the Taliban), besides putting all of the Iraq troops into Afganistan

I don't generally advocate violence, but I'm not sure this is a bad idea. Let's face it, this isn't suburban USA, these people have been around the block a few times when it comes to war. I'm not sure they are ever going to achieve anything close to a democracy there until everyone has the means to stand up for themselves. Sucks, but true.

And while we're at it, let's send a few pallets to the Darfur refugee camps. If anyone has earned the right to start shooting back, they have.

Well, why not? It worked so well in the past!

Well, there's no way this could backfire.

Lionel Mandrake: Well, why not? It worked so well in the past!

Yeah, look what happened when the French gave us all those guns.

2wolves: An armed society is a polite society. Let's find out...

Even though I'm a big believer in gun rights I've always found that line of reasoning to be pretty awful.

1. Hand out grab bag of guns and ammo to everyone with working arms
2. ?????
3. Utopia!

"I have a bad feeling about this..."

I was always told that the American constitutional framers saw democracy as an experiment. Somehow, I don't think this is what they had in mind.

kyleaugustus: I was always told that the American constitutional framers saw democracy as an experiment. Somehow, I don't think this is what they had in mind.

Err no, they saw our REPUBLIC as a experiment. They railed against Democracy and called it what it is, moronic. USA is a Republic not a democracy.

Yay! More guns! But what's the "new" part?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

/day 2,063
//fark you bush

Well it worked against the Harkonnens.

I would expect the warlords -- Rashid Dostum, Ismail Khan, et al -- to look for a way to either slow down or exploit this, since arming people who aren't their followers isn't necessarily in their own interest. Open revolt might be too chancy (it'd provide an excuse for visits by AC-130s, for instance).

...unless, of course, they've had genuine changes-of-heart and no longer elevate their own interests ahead of everybody else's. I doubt that many people seriously believe that; they're left in place not because anybody really trusts them further than the range of an AGM, but because taking on all the existing anti-Taliban warlords as well as the Taliban and however many followers Hekmatyar still has would have been substantially more difficult.

For those that don't recall how controversial at least one of our 'friends' is --

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7798993.stm

FTA:

According to reports, hundreds of Taleban prisoners died in northern Afghanistan in November 2001 after surrendering to US-backed forces.

Human rights groups said the prisoners were being held by forces loyal to the ethnic Uzbek warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum, of the anti-Taleban Northern Alliance.

Reports said the prisoners had died of suffocation in overcrowded container trucks as they were taken from their former stronghold of Kunduz to a prison in Sheberghan town, west of Mazar-e Sharif.


The article notes reports that "unidentified armed criminals" have been removing the corpses from a mass grave -- believed to be an attempt to destroy evidence of war crimes.

I think there is going to be need for epic fail tag in the near future

FlameDuck: I think there is going to be need for epic fail tag in the near future

Perhaps it should be called the " USA " tag ?

Let's surge them...

"Millions for defense.
Billions for tribute."

I got that right, didn't I?

Afghanistan, 1988: Support the mujahideen against the Soviets. Result: Taliban and al Qaeda
Afghanistan, 2008: Support the civilians against the Taliban & al Qaeda. Result: ???

Does someone think it's going to work out better a second time? And if so, why? Discuss.

Argh2: Lionel Mandrake: Well, why not? It worked so well in the past!

Yeah, look what happened when the French gave us all those guns.

Yeah, I was speaking more about the last time we armed Afghans...but you knew that.

Gyrfalcon: Afghanistan, 1988: Support the mujahideen against the Soviets. Result: Taliban and al Qaeda
Afghanistan, 2008: Support the civilians against the Taliban & al Qaeda. Result: ???

Does someone think it's going to work out better a second time? And if so, why? Discuss.

It would likely work by simple math.
If we say 80% of people in these societies are still "good" (or at least can be negotiated with by way of their tribal elders) that means arming the majority works against the troublemakers.

By equipping the tribal militia we reduce the power of any roving bands of gunmen inside their turf. All that remains is to play for the interests of the farmers.
...and that parts easy.

way south:

By equipping the tribal militia we reduce the power of any roving bands of gunmen inside their turf.


The tribal milita ARE the roving bands of gunmen.

So how the fark does arming them reduce their power?

Lionel Mandrake: Well, why not? It worked so well in the past!

When we armed the Afghans in the past, it worked out very well. Then we left and allowed them to deteriorate economically and a civil war to be waged. During the Civil War, a group that was previously an extreme minority of the people won in 1996 because they gained popular support by being the most brutal and appealing to the weakness embraced by most poor people: religion.

So the moral of the story isn't "don't arm people". It's "don't arm people and then leave them with nothing but their guns when there is a power vacuum and economic strife".

ZipSplat: Lionel Mandrake: Well, why not? It worked so well in the past!

When we armed the Afghans in the past, it worked out very well. Then we left and allowed them to deteriorate economically and a civil war to be waged. During the Civil War, a group that was previously an extreme minority of the people won in 1996 because they gained popular support by being the most brutal and appealing to the weakness embraced by most poor people: religion.

So the moral of the story isn't "don't arm people". It's "don't arm people and then leave them with nothing but their guns when there is a power vacuum and economic strife".

How about quit farking around on the far side of the earth, and quit spending billions to make the lives of dirt poor people even worse than they already are?

How about spending biillions here at home to bring our educational system into the 21st century, and to bring our rail transportation network outof the 1930s, and to prevent millions of children from being malnourished in the richest nation on Earth?

How about we stop acting like we own the farking entire planet, and how about we start acting like decent human beings for a farking change?

Those are some morals for you.

General Zang: Those are some morals for you.

Oh snap!

General Zang: How about quit farking around on the far side of the earth, and quit spending billions to make the lives of dirt poor people even worse than they already are?

How about spending biillions here at home to bring our educational system into the 21st century, and to bring our rail transportation network outof the 1930s, and to prevent millions of children from being malnourished in the richest nation on Earth?

How about we stop acting like we own the farking entire planet, and how about we start acting like decent human beings for a farking change?

Those are some morals for you.

Oh General Zang, is there anything you don't have an obtuse and specious opinion on?

The problem isn't our action in Afghanistan, it is our inaction in Afghanistan. You're working in a binary world where the cause of our woes is directly related to our acting in Southwest Asia, not to the incompetence of those doing the actions.

Up until about 2004, Afghan opinion polls for the U.S. were intensely pro-American, but have been in slow but steady decline since then. The Afghan population HATES the Taliban, but right now they just want peace whether that is a fascist peace or a democratic peace.

What we need are competent leaders who will win in Afghanistan and influence the Middle East and SW Asia to our side, not someone who just wants to run from the problems without solving them. I think we know what that kind of politically correct option leads to. Hopefully Barack Obama can do this before Afghan opinion polls slip from still being positive, to being negative or apathetic.

spamdog: Oh snap!

Was that your knee jerking?

ZipSplat: The problem isn't our action in Afghanistan, it is our inaction in Afghanistan.

ZipSplat: What we need are competent leaders who will win in Afghanistan and influence the Middle East and SW Asia to our side

Still don't get it do you?

spamdog: Still don't get it do you?

Elaborate, instead of making easily defensible vague blanket statements, then maybe I will.

way south: If we say 80% of people in these societies are still "good" (or at least can be negotiated with by way of their tribal elders) that means arming the majority works against the troublemakers.

What makes you think 'good' means allied with us? They can be good and still hate the infidel, wanting the foreign forces out of their country.

If 80% of the population was on our side, there'd be no need to hand out firearms as there'd be no Taliban or insurgency.

ZipSplat: Elaborate, instead of making easily defensible vague blanket statements, then maybe I will.

OK, right after you explain this:

General Zang: Then we left and allowed them to deteriorate economically and a civil war to be waged. During the Civil War, a group that was previously an extreme minority of the people won in 1996

ZipSplat: You're working in a binary world where the cause of our woes is directly related to our acting in Southwest Asia, not to the incompetence of those doing the actions.

OK, what guarantee is there that things will work right this time?! You can't blame "incompetence" and then immediately seek to do the same thing they did!

Befuddled: What makes you think 'good' means allied with us? They can be good and still hate the infidel, wanting the foreign forces out of their country.

If 80% of the population was on our side, there'd be no need to hand out firearms as there'd be no Taliban or insurgency.

Most of the people in Afghanistan want sovereignty, and agree that the way to that is security. They strongly dislike the Taliban, but they realize that if they play by their rules, they won't be hurt. And the U.S. isn't going to (intentionally) hurt them no matter what.

After 9/11, the United States was held in very high regard, however our inability to provide security has made us little more than an impediment to stability for them. This is because we only have about 30,000 troops in ALL of Afghanistan, and and of course most of these are support troops who never leave the wire, so call it at most about 7,000 actual combat troops in Afghanistan.

The locals dislike the Taliban, but fear them. They like the United States, but find them useless. They don't have guns because the Taliban disarmed them in the 90's. The solution is to arm the villages that are currently unoccupied to be able to defend themselves against Taliban occupation.

Most people here in the U.S. have an even fuzzier picture of what's happening in Afghanistan than they do in Iraq. The Taliban literally dominates more land in Afghanistan right now than the United States purely because they have guns and the locals do not. Many areas in Afghanistan are off-limits to U.S. armed forced because the Taliban are entrenched there. The same thing is happening in Pakistan. Peshawar is surrounded by Taliban-dominated cities.

The minority in these countries cannot defend themselves against the Taliban because they have no guns. With no means to revolt, there's not much they can do except submit to the person who threatens to kill them if they do not.

Obama is just going to bust out a World Peace Treaty and daze em all

spamdog: ZipSplat: Elaborate, instead of making easily defensible vague blanket statements, then maybe I will.

OK, right after you explain this:

General Zang: Then we left and allowed them to deteriorate economically and a civil war to be waged. During the Civil War, a group that was previously an extreme minority of the people won in 1996

ZipSplat: You're working in a binary world where the cause of our woes is directly related to our acting in Southwest Asia, not to the incompetence of those doing the actions.

OK, what guarantee is there that things will work right this time?! You can't blame "incompetence" and then immediately seek to do the same thing they did!

Um, that's not General Zang saying that. That's him quoting me.

Taa daa.

And we have no "guarantees" that something will work. No sociological system works that way. However we can identify what the problem is and find ways to remedy it.

In Afghanistan the U.S. still has the majority of public support. It is almost unanimous that the Taliban is despised. The Taliban is taking over cities in Afghanistan because of the physical reality that we cannot provide security for them, and the people are disarmed. This is the stopgap.

ZipSplat: When we armed the Afghans in the past, it worked out very well. Then we left and allowed them to deteriorate economically and a civil war to be waged. During the Civil War, a group that was previously an extreme minority of the people won in 1996 because they gained popular support by being the most brutal and appealing to the weakness embraced by most poor people: religion.

To be fair to the Taliban, one reason why they rose is that the -other- factions tended to be not only highly violent (against civilians, not just combatants) but also rather untrustworthy. Their founding myth (something about intervening to stop some particularly brutal crime and civvies, as I vaguely recall) portrays them as attempting to bring law and order.

To be fair to the Afghans in general, it seems rather likely that the rise of the Taliban was substantially aided by support from at least the Pakistani ISI, which aside from any ideological sympathies most likely had little reason to appreciate continued civil war right next door.

ZipSplat: Most of the people in Afghanistan want sovereignty, and agree that the way to that is security. They strongly dislike the Taliban, but they realize that if they play by their rules, they won't be hurt. And the U.S. isn't going to (intentionally) hurt them no matter what.

After 9/11, the United States was held in very high regard, however our inability to provide security has made us little more than an impediment to stability for them. This is because we only have about 30,000 troops in ALL of Afghanistan, and and of course most of these are support troops who never leave the wire, so call it at most about 7,000 actual combat troops in Afghanistan.

The locals dislike the Taliban, but fear them. They like the United States, but find them useless. They don't have guns because the Taliban disarmed them in the 90's. The solution is to arm the villages that are currently unoccupied to be able to defend themselves against Taliban occupation.

Most people here in the U.S. have an even fuzzier picture of what's happening in Afghanistan than they do in Iraq. The Taliban literally dominates more land in Afghanistan right now than the United States purely because they have guns and the locals do not. Many areas in Afghanistan are off-limits to U.S. armed forced because the Taliban are entrenched there. The same thing is happening in Pakistan. Peshawar is surrounded by Taliban-dominated cities.

The minority in these countries cannot defend themselves against the Taliban because they have no guns. With no means to revolt, there's not much they can do except submit to the person who threatens to kill them if they do not.


I think you've got some good points there. What should be added onto that is what others have pointed out:

General Zang: way south:

By equipping the tribal militia we reduce the power of any roving bands of gunmen inside their turf.


The tribal milita ARE the roving bands of gunmen.

So how the fark does arming them reduce their power?


The idea is that it's not some black-and-white good guys vs bad guys thing where it's the innocent Afghans unable to defend themselves versus the evil Taliban. What General Zang was trying to get at here is that these categories, well as the ideas of "ally" and "foe", are much more fluid and ambiguous than I think you give them credit for.

I agree with you that a better direction needs to be taken in Afghanistan, and I think one would be hard pressed to finds someone that disagrees. But that does not necessarily mean arming people. It might have unintended consequences. It certain did last time we armed them.

ZipSplat:

What we need are competent leaders who will win in Afghanistan and influence the Middle East and SW Asia to our side, ....


What exactly, do you think "our side" is?

We haven't been handing out free puppies or giving away golden-egg-laying unicorns for the past 70 years.

Ask the folks in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Columbia how exciting and fun it is to be "on our side".

Hell... ask the Mexicans how beneficial it is to be our next-door neighbor.

I find it highly unlikely that we'll be capable of "winning middle easterners to our side", when that side basically consists of a desire to keep most of the world prostrate with our boot placed firmly on their collective necks for the next 200 years.

I mean, sure, you can always find a few Quislings and collaborators to help you keep a conquered people in subjugation.... but it's really rare to actually have an entire nation buy into that.

When your stated goals consist of rediculous and outlandish things that will never, and can never, happen in the real world.... then you'll probably fail to achieve your goals.

And waste a few trillions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of lives, in the process.

So we must be able to tell what the locals are thinking, as to if they hate the taliban or not.

Just like in Vietnam, we couldn't tell which side people were on, they don't wear uniforms.

General Zang: ZipSplat:

What we need are competent leaders who will win in Afghanistan and influence the Middle East and SW Asia to our side, ....


What exactly, do you think "our side" is?

We haven't been handing out free puppies or giving away golden-egg-laying unicorns for the past 70 years.

Ask the folks in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Columbia how exciting and fun it is to be "on our side".

Hell... ask the Mexicans how beneficial it is to be our next-door neighbor.

I find it highly unlikely that we'll be capable of "winning middle easterners to our side", when that side basically consists of a desire to keep most of the world prostrate with our boot placed firmly on their collective necks for the next 200 years.

I mean, sure, you can always find a few Quislings and collaborators to help you keep a conquered people in subjugation.... but it's really rare to actually have an entire nation buy into that.

When your stated goals consist of rediculous and outlandish things that will never, and can never, happen in the real world.... then you'll probably fail to achieve your goals.

And waste a few trillions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of lives, in the process.

wharrgarble. That was all one big red herring that had nothing to do with Afghanistan in 2008.

ZipSplat: wharrgarble. That was all one big red herring that had nothing to do with Afghanistan in 2008.

Don't be so quick to dismiss an argument entirely. What I read out of that is that we have a history of creating longer-term problems with our heavy-handed attempts at nation-building, regardless of our intentions. And even if our intentions are good, the locals are unlikely to see it that way - hence the invoking of previous examples in Central and South America.

It's certainly a good point if you would take the time to read it.

Damnhippyfreak: But that does not necessarily mean arming people. It might have unintended consequences. It certain did last time we armed them.

I think a more critical and specific look needs to be taken at the mechanics of what happened the last time we armed them. We gave the Afghans Stinger missiles. We gave them some money, but if far paled in comparison to the amount of money given by the ISI. We were not responsible for all of the AK-47s the Taliban runs around with.

After we left, Afghanistan fell in to a civil war. Had we stayed (or overtly gone there in the first place as a peacekeeping force) we could have helped set up a secular government instead of leaving Afghanistan literally to several factions of warlords. The Taliban specifically won out because they had ISI backing, and were the most brutal.

The relationship between U.S. weapons and the rise of the Taliban is loosely correlated, it is not causative. Allowing the country to go to shiat without intervention after the implosion of the Soviet puppet government was the cause.

To be clear here, we aren't just talking about going into towns to throw out weapons like candy to anyone who wants one. The article describes more of the establishment of a civilian auxiliary.

I have not read the comments yet......

As a guy that has had several good friends die in that very land I would like to say that this is a bad idea. Arming the populace in a country where no one really knows who is Taliban and who isn't is not a good idea. Everyone should just get the fukc out and let them sort their own shiat out.

/ Will be going there in a fighting capacity in 2009
// too many dead friends

ZipSplat:

wharrgarble. That was all one big red herring that had nothing to do with Afghanistan in 2008.


The Taliban was funded completely by the Pakistani ISI, which in turn recieved about 75% of the money that they passed on to the Taliban, from the United States.

Like Sadaam Husein.... the Taliban were farking monsters... but they were OUR monsters. Bought and paid for.

Like Sadaam Husein, like Osama Bin Laden (who was our pal when he was with the Mujahadeen), like the Taliban, like Baby Doc, like Papa Doc, like Ferdinand Marcos, like Somoza, like Manual Norriega, like Duarte, like the Shah of Iran, like the current butcher in charge of Uzbekistan...

...these are all examples of our "friends", who we have paid billions of dollars to, in order to "influence them to be on our side".

Then, later.... eitehr their own populations rise up to kill these monsters, or they get out of our control, and we show up to put an end to them.

Either way.... constantly bankrolling monsters, and then showing up later to be the saviors who defeated the monsters... stops working after everybody over the age of 12 on Earth, has grown wise to the game being played.


It's a recipe for more of the same nonsense that we've been doing around the globe for 70 years.

Damnhippyfreak: Don't be so quick to dismiss an argument entirely. What I read out of that is that we have a history of creating longer-term problems with our heavy-handed attempts at nation-building, regardless of our intentions. And even if our intentions are good, the locals are unlikely to see it that way - hence the invoking of previous examples in Central and South America.

It's certainly a good point if you would take the time to read it.

I read it, it takes a more thorough knowledge of the mechanics of what is going on in Afghanistan and what was going on in South America to understand the difference. I've explained briefly the situation here a few times. All General Zang sees is men with guns, and all men with guns are bad. It's the same story every thread.

I think you're going out on a limb interpreting his froth.

General Zang: The Taliban was funded completely by the Pakistani ISI, which in turn recieved about 75% of the money that they passed on to the Taliban, from the United States.

Like Sadaam Husein.... the Taliban were farking monsters... but they were OUR monsters. Bought and paid for.

Like Sadaam Husein, like Osama Bin Laden (who was our pal when he was with the Mujahadeen), like the Taliban, like Baby Doc, like Papa Doc, like Ferdinand Marcos, like Somoza, like Manual Norriega, like Duarte, like the Shah of Iran, like the current butcher in charge of Uzbekistan...

...these are all examples of our "friends", who we have paid billions of dollars to, in order to "influence them to be on our side".

Then, later.... eitehr their own populations rise up to kill these monsters, or they get out of our control, and we show up to put an end to them.

Either way.... constantly bankrolling monsters, and then showing up later to be the saviors who defeated the monsters... stops working after everybody over the age of 12 on Earth, has grown wise to the game being played.


It's a recipe for more of the same nonsense that we've been doing around the globe for 70 years.

Don't get your history from the backs of cereal boxes you bought at Whole Foods. That post was literally like you put history in a blender and hit "puree".

ZipSplat:

To be clear here, we aren't just talking about going into towns to throw out weapons like candy to anyone who wants one. The article describes more of the establishment of a civilian auxiliary.


Ah.... "civilian auxiliaries".... like the Contras in Nicaragua, or more like the Paramilitaries in Columbia? Or more like Papa Doc's plainclothes security forces in Haiti? Or more like the deathsquads in El Salvador?

Or more like the various village defense forces in South Vietnam?

Which example of triumph and success from America's history of arming "civilian auxiliaries", did you wish to emulate?

ZipSplat: I think a more critical and specific look needs to be taken at the mechanics of what happened the last time we armed them. We gave the Afghans Stinger missiles. We gave them some money, but if far paled in comparison to the amount of money given by the ISI. We were not responsible for all of the AK-47s the Taliban runs around with.

After we left, Afghanistan fell in to a civil war. Had we stayed (or overtly gone there in the first place as a peacekeeping force) we could have helped set up a secular government instead of leaving Afghanistan literally to several factions of warlords. The Taliban specifically won out because they had ISI backing, and were the most brutal.

The relationship between U.S. weapons and the rise of the Taliban is loosely correlated, it is not causative. Allowing the country to go to shiat without intervention after the implosion of the Soviet puppet government was the cause.

To be clear here, we aren't just talking about going into towns to throw out weapons like candy to anyone who wants one. The article describes more of the establishment of a civilian auxiliary.


Again, you bring up some good points. But there are some important assumptions that you make in order for your idea to work:

"Had we stayed (or overtly gone there in the first place as a peacekeeping force) we could have helped set up a secular government instead of leaving Afghanistan literally to several factions of warlords. The Taliban specifically won out because they had ISI backing, and were the most brutal."

Easy to say, and of course that would be a solution. But how to do this, and even if it is even possible through military occupation and solely arming groups whose interests dovetail with ours for the moment is the question. We have a very poor track record of this.

"The relationship between U.S. weapons and the rise of the Taliban is loosely correlated, it is not causative. Allowing the country to go to shiat without intervention after the implosion of the Soviet puppet government was the cause."

Again, you're assuming a particular mode of "intervention" here that again has a fairly poor record. The idea I'm trying to get across here is that sometimes it's the whole strategy that may be set up for failure. Simply put, there may be no good way to arm Afghans. This may not be a technical problem of execution, but a question of a fundamentally flawed approach toward foreign policy, and I would argue that much of that comes from a narrow view of what the perceived problems are - it's not just about security.

At the very least, it needs to be part of an integrated multi-level strategy, much as the 'surge' in Iraq was. Capacity building, working with local interests, economic development, and security - all these need to be addressed simultaneously. If we see this simplisticly as solely a security problem, we're going to run into the exact same problems as we have in other places.

chumboobler: I have not read the comments yet......

As a guy that has had several good friends die in that very land I would like to say that this is a bad idea. Arming the populace in a country where no one really knows who is Taliban and who isn't is not a good idea. Everyone should just get the fukc out and let them sort their own shiat out.

/ Will be going there in a fighting capacity in 2009
// too many dead friends

Hopefully when you actually deploy there you'll get a better picture. Until then, watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/

That's really just a decent primer for a layperson. You should be reading up significantly on Afghanistan and the Taliban. Another good look at the interplay between the Afghan populace and the Taliban is in a documentary called "Inside the Green Berets" by National Geographic. It's got a crappy low-res version on YouTube.

The last time we let them "sort it out for themselves" we got the Taliban and a haven for al-Qaeda. It's simply not an option this time around to allow the Taliban to regain power. And yes, that is likely what would happen if we left.

I hope we aren't about to go through an "Out of Afghanistan!" phase in this country. That would have ruined Iraq even more than we already had in 2004 and 2005. Heaven help us if we leave Afghanistan prematurely.

I've got dead friends as well, but you and I missing a few friends or even dying ourselves pales in comparison to the sacrifices these people have made over the past 40 years. Our leaving would be absolutely tragic at this stage.