Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trying to create democracy from rubble

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trying to create democracy from rubble

    After 9/11 US went into Afganistan and defeated Taliban and set up a government. i dont know a lot about all we are doing over there but now the taliban seems to have regrouped. what 95 % of the opium comes from Afganistan and it was lower when the Taliban was there.

    Iraq is now a country torn by war. Shittes and Sunnis are fighting. But when Saddam was there there was no real fighting.

    It seems whenever we go into a country to create a democracy, we make a bigger problem than what was there. Saddam was a dictator and was murderer but the country was mostly stable. Afganistan was somewhat stable when the taliban ruled. but now that other country forces are there it seems like the country falls apart while US and NATO and UN troops die.

    Are we doing much good by going into countries to stablize and make friendly when they are somewhat friendly already. Can we afford to take out every dictator and murderer and put up a new government. Now Afganistan was needed but was Iraq just a huge mistake that cant be fixed. This is now going to take billions more dollars and years to clear up all of these nations. Is it something we want to do?
    "All Glory is Fleeting"

  • #2
    Regardless of how we got here.......

    To go into another country, make a mess, then say "whoops we made a mistake" and then leave would just plain be wrong.

    You say that these countries were stable before. One might ask for whom they were stable, but let us accept this as the case.

    It would be wrong wrong wrong to destabilize these countries and then walk away. If this country has any values, heart, and soul it must finish the job because it started it. We may conveniently ignore the suffering and death in many places around the world and continue to enjoy our good life, but we got involved here. What is done is done. Now America has a responsibility whether it likes it or not.

    Comment


    • #3
      the US finds it exceedingly easy to win the war, but extremely hard to win the peace. That's not a new phenomenon. They go to these countries with the purist of intentions, actively seeking to better these folks lives, but then they can't understand why said folk might not want US help bettering their lives.
      Now listening too;
      - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

      Comment


      • #4
        I actually don't think thats fair Ivan. If you had run a free and fair poll of the people of Iraq prior to the war they would have voted for an Invasion... Just as an aside this is not an American problem it is a coalition problem one which both your and my countries are part of.

        The issue is what we do when we have won. We have had a perfect model for this in the Marshall plan and we ignored it for some Neo-liberal variant that is inherently counter productive and is then seen by local population as exploitative. What we needed was more thought about post war how we manage and stabilise these countries.

        However we are there now and we need to suffer the price of our politicians folly with the lives of our soldiers there is no other right choice since to leave is abandoning these people to a much worse fate. And just because a minority and please do not mistake the howling of the press for the reality of our enemies size, fight us does not mean that all of that vast majority of a nation do not aspire to normal stable life without violence or its threat.

        10- 15 years at least...

        Comment


        • #5
          More or less...

          Ivan Rapkinov is right...Winning the peace is the tricky bit.

          Miss.Saigon is right...We have a moral obligation to not abandon the Afghan and Iraqi people.

          verbaluzi is right...We need a Marshall Plan for the Islamic world.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's because we are coerced by politically-correct multiculturalism into thinking that we have no right to defend ourselves for our own sake. They demand that force only be used in altruistic "causes," so we seek to create one to assuage their ire and allow us to have some semblance of self-defense. Otherwise, it's surrender and wait for the next attack, baby.

            “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense

            What explains the defeatism of the leaders and citizens of the most powerful nation on earth?

            One crucial factor is the failure of our intellectual and political leadership to clearly identify the nature of our enemy, to recognize that terrorism stems from a religious ideological movement that seeks our destruction and that that movement is widely supported by Muslim peoples and states.

            One intellectual motivation for this evasion is the doctrine of Multiculturalism
            , which holds that all cultures are equal, and thus that it is immoral for Western Culture to declare itself superior to any other. Having swallowed this doctrine, most of our intellectuals and politicians are reluctant to identify a clearly evil, militant ideological movement as an aspect of Arab–Islamic culture or to acknowledge its widespread support in that culture.

            The most significant development in Just War Theory since Augustine's time is that the theory has come to include an endorsement of what it calls a “right to self-defense.” But because Just War Theory has maintained its Augustinian, altruistic roots, its alleged “right” to self-defense turns out to be no such thing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Now let me get this straight the reason that the countries are left in rubble is because we are not allowed to defend ourselves?

              How exactly would the country not be left in this state if we were allowed to defend ourselves?

              You have a weird view of defending yourself is all I can say.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by verbaluzi View Post
                I actually don't think thats fair Ivan. If you had run a free and fair poll of the people of Iraq prior to the war they would have voted for an Invasion... Just as an aside this is not an American problem it is a coalition problem one which both your and my countries are part of.
                well...both the UK and Oz have had experience in "winning the peace" (SASOs), whereas the Americans seem really bad at it - I'm not sure why. I think it might have something to do with how efficient their military is at 3GW, that they can't "step down" to a lower level of conflict with the same efficacy as the smaller militaries.

                And that's before unrealistic political constraints are put on the stablising period. But for the most part the CotW was running the aftermath of OIF as an adjunct to the US plan.
                Now listening too;
                - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov View Post
                  well...both the UK and Oz have had experience in "winning the peace" (SASOs), whereas the Americans seem really bad at it - I'm not sure why. I think it might have something to do with how efficient their military is at 3GW, that they can't "step down" to a lower level of conflict with the same efficacy as the smaller militaries.

                  And that's before unrealistic political constraints are put on the stablising period. But for the most part the CotW was running the aftermath of OIF as an adjunct to the US plan.
                  Why are we confined to 4GW and not allowed to defend ourselves using our strengths, i.e., 3GW? If we have the right to self-defense, why do you exert so much effort to take away our strengths? Why do you attempt to constrain us into fighting the war that our enemies want, instead of the way we want to fight? That's what I'm talking about, uzi, not the freakin' rubble.

                  Look, another straw man! Ride, Don Quixote, ride!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The answer is because we have to. If we are to remain in the right and not have the baby killer label thrown around we have to fight constrained rather than free otherwise you **** off the very people you want to support you and not the enemy. That is how it works. It does not make it impossible to win the fight but harder, however it is easier to win the war.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov View Post
                      well...both the UK and Oz have had experience in "winning the peace" (SASOs), whereas the Americans seem really bad at it - I'm not sure why. I think it might have something to do with how efficient their military is at 3GW, that they can't "step down" to a lower level of conflict with the same efficacy as the smaller militaries.

                      And that's before unrealistic political constraints are put on the stablising period. But for the most part the CotW was running the aftermath of OIF as an adjunct to the US plan.
                      It's a combination of the two.

                      Nation-building, peace-keeping and SASOs require long periods of low-level commitment to often messy conflicts...The public has a hard time understanding them and our government tends to shy away from things that can't be easily explained to the public in sound-bytes.

                      The US Army institutionally dislikes these types of missions and spent most of the past 50 years pretending they don't exist and therefore not preparing for them...The exception being the Green Berets and other Special Operations Forces. Back in the 1980s, the Army was more or less forced to accept the establishment of a four-star Special Operations Command. The Army's conventional commanders have only grudgingly accepted unconventional warfare; and have yet to place it on a par with armor and maneuver warfare.

                      The US Marine Corps was built upon SASO-type missions and maintains a fair amount of expertise and enthusiasm for such missions.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Is it, however, the primary mission of any military to force a type of government upon a people with which they are both unfamiliar and religiously unsuited?

                        Does there in fact exist some sort of Supreme Mandate to convert the world to democracy, while we ourselves object to being converted to an Islamic theocracy, and if so, when do we begin forcefully converting North Korea and the remainder of the world?

                        It should be noted that the US Army Special Forces were modelled after the OSS Jedburgh Teams, specifically created to assist Eastern European nations in forming resistance movements and regaining the governments which they previously had. The SF mission was never to create a new form of government simply because America didn't like the old one. We should also recall that our ten year experiment in creating a democracy in Viet Nam failed, and the fall of Communism is Eastern Europe occured entirely without the intervention of those Special Forces. The Special Forces never, in fact, performed the original mission for which they were created.

                        To paraphrase a certain line: just because America can do something does not mean that we should, or that it is even a good idea. We are perilously close to a moral precipice, acting as though our view of the world is the only correct one and that we therefore must convert others to it, by force if necessary.

                        We would have done far, far better in Iraq to have recognized that nation's lengthy history of dictatorship and to have simply replaced Hussein with a more moderate and pro-Western ruler, rather than ripping apart a social, religious and government theocratic system we did not understand and assuming we could, instead, recreate that system as a Western democracy which the Iraqis did not understand.
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by verbaluzi View Post
                          The answer is because we have to.
                          Trivial tautology.

                          If we are to remain in the right...
                          How do you know we're "in the right" now, in order to be able to "remain" there?

                          ...and not have the baby killer label thrown around...
                          By whom? The enemy? Why should we care about that? What about the soldiers whose lives are considered as less valuable than islamic citizens? Why are those citizens of any greater worth than our soldiers?

                          we have to fight constrained rather than free otherwise you **** off the very people you want to support you and not the enemy.
                          An admission of the existence and source of the constraints you want placed on U.S. efforts at self-defense. I don't accept the premise of this statement that we "must win their hearts and minds." That's a 4GW concept wherein the people we "want to support us" (as though they'd actually do that in the first place) are the enemy. It's sick and twisted that we should be so shackled.

                          That is how it works. It does not make it impossible to win the fight but harder, however it is easier to win the war.
                          So you admit you're purposely looking to make winning harder, good! That's honesty. Why should we be handicapped like that? This isn't a freakin' horse race, that you should handicap our efforts, for what..."to make the war fair?" And we come full circle, with you admitting and showing that altruism and multiculturalism seek to shackle U.S. efforts at self-defense.

                          Go read the whole article that I linked, you are not grasping the principles here.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MountainMan View Post
                            Is it, however, the primary mission of any military to force a type of government upon a people with which they are both unfamiliar and religiously unsuited?

                            <snip>
                            Excellent post.

                            Originally posted by OmegaStrike
                            Why are we confined to 4GW and not allowed to defend ourselves using our strengths, i.e., 3GW? If we have the right to self-defense, why do you exert so much effort to take away our strengths? Why do you attempt to constrain us into fighting the war that our enemies want, instead of the way we want to fight?
                            Because we're not talking about fighting; we're talking about stablilising the country after the fighting is concluded. and by "fighting" I mean the 3GW part. You can't establish a working government by approaching it the same as you would a conflict. Especially not in a culture which differs from your own.
                            Now listening too;
                            - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MountainMan View Post
                              Is it, however, the primary mission of any military to force a type of government upon a people with which they are both unfamiliar and religiously unsuited?

                              Does there in fact exist some sort of Supreme Mandate to convert the world to democracy...?
                              No, such a mandate does not exist and is part of what I'm arguing against, and part of the constraining forces. "Bringing democracy to the world" is the altruistic excuse we are forced to make in order to be allowed to defend ourselves at all. The altruists and multiculturalists won't allow us to defend ourselves for our own sake, so we are forced to come up with such excuses or remain passive and vulnerable.

                              We would have done far, far better in Iraq to have recognized that nation's lengthy history of dictatorship and to have simply replaced Hussein with a more moderate and pro-Western ruler, rather than ripping apart a social, religious and government theocratic system we did not understand and assuming we could, instead, recreate that system as a Western democracy which the Iraqis did not understand.
                              We should have handled it like post-WW2 Japan: written their constitution for them, enforced the separation of religion and state, and set up the government we, as victors, wanted there. But that's "selfish," don't you know.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X