We really do need to get out of Afghanistan.  That's the sort of country that only a few neutron bombs could fix.

We really do need to get out of Afghanistan.  That's the sort of country that only a few neutron bombs could fix.


So then Osama and his buddies can turn the place back into an unfettered training ground?

The terrorists feed on the comforting thought that America is so divided that it can't stand to see American blood spilled when a war gets tough.  They expect the US to hightail it out of Afghanistan, and this expectation gives the terrorists "staying power".

We went into Afghanistan for a reason... to stop it from being a terrorist haven.  And we likewise are supporting Pakistan's efforts to emasculate the Taliban there too.  But all of it will be for naught if we simply turn tail.

This issue is going to come to a head in the Obama administration, as the president has been quite clear that the Afghanistan war is a war of necessity, but the Democratic Congressional leaders would leave Afghanistan in a heartbeat.  How they navigate this fundamental difference will be an interesting test of Obama's leadership of his own party.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we help Afghanistan in the 80s when Russia was trying to invade their asses?  Didn't Russia almost succeed until we loaded the Afghanis down with weapons? ???

So for Mr. Taliban leader to say they have "effective weapons" is laughable, considering they wouldn't have had them without our help.  Methinks he needs to brush up on HIS recent history.

So then Osama and his buddies can turn the place back into an unfettered training ground?

The terrorists feed on the comforting thought that America is so divided that it can't stand to see American blood spilled when a war gets tough.  They expect the US to hightail it out of Afghanistan, and this expectation gives the terrorists "staying power".

We went into Afghanistan for a reason... to stop it from being a terrorist haven.  And we likewise are supporting Pakistan's efforts to emasculate the Taliban there too.  But all of it will be for naught if we simply turn tail.

This issue is going to come to a head in the Obama administration, as the president has been quite clear that the Afghanistan war is a war of necessity, but the Democratic Congressional leaders would leave Afghanistan in a heartbeat.  How they navigate this fundamental difference will be an interesting test of Obama's leadership of his own party.


I think what people like Osama are hoping for is that America continues to invade Islamic countries, so that they can recruit people easier.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we help Afghanistan in the 80s when Russia was trying to invade their asses?  Didn't Russia almost succeed until we loaded the Afghanis down with weapons? ???

So for Mr. Taliban leader to say they have "effective weapons" is laughable, considering they wouldn't have had them without our help.  Methinks he needs to brush up on HIS recent history.



They indeed are getting enough weapons (and funding) from foreign sources to mount a credible resistance movement, as evidenced by the weekly casualty reports. 

As is evidenced by the weak-kneed response we are seeing now in Washington.

But the most effective weapon that the Taliban has is "staying power".  In their theology they assume that they will have to fight for a long time and that it will be costly.  The forces building in Washington DC operate under a mantra of "how soon can we get out"?  Ultimately the former will prevail over the latter if the latter proves to no longer have the stomach to do what it takes to eliminate its sworn enemies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we help Afghanistan in the 80s when Russia was trying to invade their asses?  Didn't Russia almost succeed until we loaded the Afghanis down with weapons? ???

So for Mr. Taliban leader to say they have "effective weapons" is laughable, considering they wouldn't have had them without our help.  Methinks he needs to brush up on HIS recent history.
No - they'd have had the Russians out without the Western weapons.  Might have taken them a bit longer, but as the Taliban chap says, no occupying power has held Afghanistan.  The Brits only managed it for a couple of decades by paying off the various tribal warlords, but as soon as someone back in England decided that the money was too much, we were kicked out within months.

It's why the "hearts and minds" cliché needs to be put into practise rather than bandied about: if the population of Afghanistan want an invader out, they'll be out.  What will prove Omar wrong is for the people of Afghanistan to decide they don't want to go back to a backward, almost mediaeval theocracy.  Given that the Taliban is forcibly recruiting children to fight "the people fighting against God" (ever wondered why if they believe this that their God hasn't helped them out?), ISTM their popularity is waning.

However, every "misguided" missile that wipes out a village makes the occupying force seem more like an invading one, and makes it much more likely that we're going to lose in the long run.

No - they'd have had the Russians out without the Western weapons.  Might have taken them a bit longer, but as the Taliban chap says, no occupying power has held Afghanistan.  The Brits only managed it for a couple of decades by paying off the various tribal warlords, but as soon as someone back in England decided that the money was too much, we were kicked out within months.

The difference is that the Brits can't stomach the kill everyone and everything approach.  The Soviets didn't have a problem with killing millions of people, and had it not been for our weapons, they probably would've won against the mujahideen.

Granted, in hindsight, I wish they had.

It's why the "hearts and minds" cliché needs to be put into practise rather than bandied about: if the population of Afghanistan want an invader out, they'll be out.  What will prove Omar wrong is for the people of Afghanistan to decide they don't want to go back to a backward, almost mediaeval theocracy.  Given that the Taliban is forcibly recruiting children to fight "the people fighting against God" (ever wondered why if they believe this that their God hasn't helped them out?), ISTM their popularity is waning.

That's not true, actually.  The Taliban has gained popularity in many regions because the government we've put into place has much local law enforcement that behaves almost as oppressively as the Taliban once did.

In short, in an environment with very little education and resources, fundamentalism flourishes.  This is why reshaping Afghanistan into a functional modern country is nigh impossible.  Kabul might have some hope, but the majority of the country is a hellhole.

However, every "misguided" missile that wipes out a village makes the occupying force seem more like an invading one, and makes it much more likely that we're going to lose in the long run.


There are 2 ways to win Afghanistan.

1) Revolutionize the area's education system, move a lot of industry there, and pay farmers enough for growing food crops that opium production has no appeal.

2) Wipe the remote villages off the face of the earth.

Obviously, approach #2 is evil, but it is a lot cheaper than #1.

The difference is that the Brits can't stomach the kill everyone and everything approach.  The Soviets didn't have a problem with killing millions of people, and had it not been for our weapons, they probably would've won against the mujahideen.

Granted, in hindsight, I wish they had.


Yeah, I still get a kick out of Rambo III.  If only John Rambo had asked "do we get to lose?".


1) Revolutionize the area's education system, move a lot of industry there, and pay farmers enough for growing food crops that opium production has no appeal.


My favorite post-9/11 editorial cartoon - back when we weren't even sure if we were going to retaliate, let alone how, featured a squadron of heavy transports blanketing the countryside with leaflets.

"Next time, we'll be dropping books.  Turn over Osama, or we'll educate your women."

That's not true, actually.  The Taliban has gained popularity in many regions because the government we've put into place has much local law enforcement that behaves almost as oppressively as the Taliban once did.

In short, in an environment with very little education and resources, fundamentalism flourishes.  This is why reshaping Afghanistan into a functional modern country is nigh impossible.  Kabul might have some hope, but the majority of the country is a hellhole.
It's not often that someone starts a reply with "that's not true", then goes on to say something I entirely agree with :)

But the two statements aren't contradictory - there are definitely places in Afghanistan where Taliban influence and popularity are on the wane, and they're responding by forcibly conscripting people at gunpoint; where the people are getting pissed off by corruption and poor policing, they'll find recruitment easier.

There are 2 ways to win Afghanistan.

1) Revolutionize the area's education system, move a lot of industry there, and pay farmers enough for growing food crops that opium production has no appeal.

2) Wipe the remote villages off the face of the earth.

Obviously, approach #2 is evil, but it is a lot cheaper than #1.

3) Legalize opium worldwide, and set up a legitimate trade .


"Next time, we'll be dropping books.  Turn over Osama, or we'll educate your women."

:D :D :D

3) Legalize opium worldwide, and set up a legitimate trade .
:D :D :D



I'm not a fan of the War on Drugs, but currently, Afghanistan produces significantly more than the world consumes in opium -- even when counting prescription drugs that contain opium/opium-derived substances.

Legalizing opium probably would not solve the issue of farmers growing it even when considering the drop in value that it would take from having such a huge surplus in a legitimate market, or at least, it wouldn't change their growing habits quickly enough to prevent worse addiction rates in Iran in the meantime.

The problem with opium is its addiction rate.  There aren't many "casual" opium users.  Right now, Iran is suffering one of the worst heroin addiction rates in the world partially because of the opium trade in neighboring Afghanistan.  Much of that opium is being used to create the heroin in Iran.

Not to mention, another reason they grow opium in Afghanistan is because the climate is too harsh to grow much else without using modern and expensive farming processes.

Legalizing opium probably would not solve the issue of farmers growing it even when considering the drop in value that it would take from having such a huge surplus in a legitimate market, or at least, it wouldn't change their growing habits quickly enough to prevent worse addiction rates in Iran in the meantime.
It wouldn't necessarily take a drop in value at the production end: the poppy farmers aren't the ones making huge money from the trade.  But I'm talking legitimate supply to an existing market: it wouldn't be such a huge surplus.  I know it's pie in the sky, though: rationally, it's the sensible thing to do, but the legalization debate has never had much rationality in it; especially as it would require global agreements for this sort of change to happen.


The problem with opium is its addiction rate.  There aren't many "casual" opium users.  Right now, Iran is suffering one of the worst heroin addiction rates in the world partially because of the opium trade in neighboring Afghanistan.  Much of that opium is being used to create the heroin in Iran.
Throughout history there have always been people who have used opium while maintaining an otherwise normal lifestyle - in Rome two thousand years ago, there were more than seven hundred shops selling the stuff (and officially alcohol was considered a problem for society, but opium wasn't).

Bear in mind you have no idea how many people are casual opium users, because they're never counted - it's only the problem ones that are, and the very fact of illegality makes their problems worse. As does the refining to morphine and processing to heroin: before morphine came along, opium use was widespread and not considered problematic; heroin was a godsend to the illegal trade because it's so much more compact and so very, very addictive.

I didn't realize Iran had so much of a problem with opiates, though.. still, I guess it's inevitable if you have a theocratic rule that bans alcohol: people are going to look for escape somehow.


Not to mention, another reason they grow opium in Afghanistan is because the climate is too harsh to grow much else without using modern and expensive farming processes.
ISTR reading an article that reckoned wild strawberries did pretty well.. but then there's the problem of what to do with tons of small, sweet strawbs that you can't get to market before they rot.

It wouldn't necessarily take a drop in value at the production end: the poppy farmers aren't the ones making huge money from the trade.  But I'm talking legitimate supply to an existing market: it wouldn't be such a huge surplus.  I know it's pie in the sky, though: rationally, it's the sensible thing to do, but the legalization debate has never had much rationality in it; especially as it would require global agreements for this sort of change to happen.

I don't think this really is the best option though.  Legalization as an option works fine with less addictive substances like marijuana, but something like opium can't be handled the same way.

Throughout history there have always been people who have used opium while maintaining an otherwise normal lifestyle - in Rome two thousand years ago, there were more than seven hundred shops selling the stuff (and officially alcohol was considered a problem for society, but opium wasn't).

On the flipside though, opium nearly destroyed China:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Bear in mind you have no idea how many people are casual opium users, because they're never counted - it's only the problem ones that are, and the very fact of illegality makes their problems worse. As does the refining to morphine and processing to heroin: before morphine came along, opium use was widespread and not considered problematic; heroin was a godsend to the illegal trade because it's so much more compact and so very, very addictive.

This argument is rather close to the one I had with you in defense of gun ownership with respect to self-defense.  Without statistics to back up your claim, it's rather hard to use it against readily recorded statistics.

I didn't realize Iran had so much of a problem with opiates, though.. still, I guess it's inevitable if you have a theocratic rule that bans alcohol: people are going to look for escape somehow.

True...  Social repression doesn't help their situation at all.

ISTR reading an article that reckoned wild strawberries did pretty well.. but then there's the problem of what to do with tons of small, sweet strawbs that you can't get to market before they rot.

Interesting....

I don't think this really is the best option though.  Legalization as an option works fine with less addictive substances like marijuana, but something like opium can't be handled the same way.
I agree that opiates and other addictive drugs are more problematic, but prohibition doesn't seem to be working to me.


On the flipside though, opium nearly destroyed China:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say "nearly destroyed China" - and it was never legal there, IIRC, or at least it was banned pretty early on.  But it is definitely one of the sorryest episodes in Britain's history..


This argument is rather close to the one I had with you in defense of gun ownership with respect to self-defense.  Without statistics to back up your claim, it's rather hard to use it against readily recorded statistics.
er.. it's *your* claim, that there aren't many casual opium users.  I can point to evidence from history that shows that opium was widely used and not considered a problem in Roman times; Laudanum (morphine dissolved in alcohol) was widely used throughout the nineteenth century (including as "gripe water" for babies!), and although there definitely were cases of addiction, given the widespread usage of the stuff it didn't do anything like the harm to society that today's (illegal) drug traffic does.

btw, did you know Laudanum is still legally available on prescription?  Though it doesn't get prescribed very much these days.

Afghanistan started by the Tribes of India and Persia as well as the Bactrians. Even Genghis Kahn took over Afghanistan and left a huge footprint to the nation ever since!

And what I know is that Afghanistan had the most changes in flags in the 20th Century....

Here's the first flag of the 20th Century (1901-1919)....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Flag_of_Afghanistan_1901.png

Here's the second flag (1919-1921)....
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1919.gif

Here's the third flag (1921-1928?)....
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af1921.gif

Here's the fourth flag (1926?-1928?)....
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1928j.gif

Here's the fifth flag (1928 & 1929)....
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af1928.gif

That was almost 30 years and they changed flags five times! Now, I'm going to have to bump this because I don't know how many flags I can put on one post....

I showed you the change of Afghanistan Flag History from 1901-1929, which I call the Black Flag Years since they were all black. Now here are a few more starting with one from 1929....
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af1929.gif

1929-1931...
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af1929o.gif

1931-1973, and this was the longest-used flag for them in the 20th Century!...
http://www.mrflag.com/thumb.php?file=1376&size=300

1973-1978 (still my favorite Afghanistan Flag)....
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1974.gif

1978-1980...
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1978.gif

The latter three flags were used because of Government changes. The longest-used one was when Afghanistan was a Kingdom. The 1973-78 flag was used when it was a Republic, and the eagle was removed later in 1978. The last one was when Afghanistan was controlled by the Communists.

By the 80's, Afghanistan was a Marxist/Lenninist State, so the flags between 1980 and 1992 were Afghanistan and Soviet Influenced....

http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1980.gif
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1987.gif

By 1992...it became an Islamic State....

http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1992.gif
http://flagspot.net/images/a/af1992d.gif

And as we end the 20th Century, The Taliban takes over in 1996....

http://www.mrflag.com/thumb.php?file=1384&size=300

But once 2001 came along...the flag that was once used between 1930 and 1973 was reused. It looks like no one can hold on to Afghanistan!

I agree that opiates and other addictive drugs are more problematic, but prohibition doesn't seem to be working to me.

True.

er.. it's *your* claim, that there aren't many casual opium users.  I can point to evidence from history that shows that opium was widely used and not considered a problem in Roman times; Laudanum (morphine dissolved in alcohol) was widely used throughout the nineteenth century (including as "gripe water" for babies!), and although there definitely were cases of addiction, given the widespread usage of the stuff it didn't do anything like the harm to society that today's (illegal) drug traffic does.

Well, slavery wasn't considered a problem in Ancient Rome either.  I'm not sure if we can use their criteria for modern life.

btw, did you know Laudanum is still legally available on prescription?  Though it doesn't get prescribed very much these days.

That's pretty weird.  I always think of "From Hell" when I think of laudanum.  The main character is addicted to that in that movie.

So then Osama and his buddies can turn the place back into an unfettered training ground?



I agree with the assessment: Study history.

There might not be a happy answer for Afghanistan, but at least we might learn not to bully smaller countries for the natural resources or for strategic purposes to control world resources.  That way, we might not make so many Saddams and Osamas in the future.

Just a little thought.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif

Well, slavery wasn't considered a problem in Ancient Rome either.  I'm not sure if we can use their criteria for modern life.

We use a lot of their ideas as criteria for modern life, don't chuck 'em all out just because (like the rest of the world at the time) they didn't have the same ideas on rights for all individuals.  IIRC, they tried banning alcohol but ran up against religion in the form of Bacchus worshippers :)

But if you don't like the Romans' attitudes, what about the Victorians?  Opiate (especially Laudanum) use was widespread in 19th century America as well.  While I'm not saying this use was beneficial to society as a whole, it was a lot less harmful than present prohibition policy (with apologies for the alliteration).

^One of the best places to talk about history is...The Book of Daniel in the Bible!

Gold=Babylon
Silver=Persia
Bronze=Greek
Iron=Rome

Some could argue that it may be this way too....

Gold=Spain
Silver=France
Bronze=Britain
Iron=America

Many countries have formed empires and many have fallen.

We use a lot of their ideas as criteria for modern life, don't chuck 'em all out just because (like the rest of the world at the time) they didn't have the same ideas on rights for all individuals.  IIRC, they tried banning alcohol but ran up against religion in the form of Bacchus worshippers :)

True.  We have borrowed a lot of their legal and political ideas and structures, but it seems to be mostly a good thing that we don't share much in common with their social views.

But if you don't like the Romans' attitudes, what about the Victorians?  Opiate (especially Laudanum) use was widespread in 19th century America as well.  While I'm not saying this use was beneficial to society as a whole, it was a lot less harmful than present prohibition policy (with apologies for the alliteration).


In the long run, I could accept legalizing opium, but a lot of societal reforms must occur before that bridge is crossed.  We need to start by legalizing pot and less addictive drugs.  After a few decades of adjusting to that, we'll be ready for legalized opium again.