Nation building in Afghanistan, success or failure?

From what I've read it appears to me that Afghanistan is more of a geographic concept than a "nation". There doesn't seem to be any sense of national identity or acceptance of central leadershp or governance. If that is so, I'd favor quiet withdrawal - and let them go on fighting, as they have in the past and as they appear to want to continue.
The Iraqi situation is quite different, in spite of their internal civil strife. I rather hope that some stability will ensue after the passage of Saddam. I've lived to see Hitler and Mussolini come and go.

>I think, the U.S. should not make the same mistake the USSR has committed in Afghanistan in '80s. It is better to find ways to make warlords neutral, than to try to impose on them authority of the central government. This is an impossible mission, and it may drag the U.S. Army into the long-lasting and resultless guerilla war.

It sounds like you aren't sure yet that the US have avoided such things. That would be the sweatest dream of all kinds of Marxists including Al-Qaeda and Taliban as well. The Americans together with the Afghanistan people HAVE ALREADY WON the war against the Taliban pro-Marxist totalitarian regime. Now the US are keeping totally 3 light-infantry brigades (2 of the 10th Mountain + 1 of the 82nd airborne) which are more than enough to control the situation. As we know the units of the 101st Air Assault Division were withdrawn earlier than it had been planned. What can prove American victory better?

------------
>Well, Cunning Coney, i'd say that your answer is embodied in Steissd's response. This is not a hopeful situation.

??? Can you imagine a more hopeful situation?

>Better we find a way to gracefully withdraw

Of course every American soldier will leave Afghanistan sooner or later. America is not so rich country to keep their soldiers in Afghanistan where they have nothing to do. But I don't see any problem: the 101st AAD for example was evacuated without any difficulties. The same can be done with every American unit at any time when Washington considers it neccessary.
--------

>...(I have some experience in such a thing that I gained in 1982-86).

Mr. Steissd, can't you name your unit and regions you visited (I'm just inquisitive)?

I'm afraid I have to agree with TPS. Afghanistan really gives the impression of being an ungovernable mass of tribes, or even just extended families. Treating it like a nation and trying to govern it as such is going to be a heartbreaker. I hopewe are not stuck with it.

Docent P, regions I was in were on the triple Soviet-Iranian-Afghan border, around the town of Herat. I shall not disclose the name of the unit since this site is being visited not only by the Soviet/Russian citizens, and as far as I remember, information regarding particular military units was classified (at least, when I was in military).

It is interesting to note that Steissd and Docent, survivors of the Soviet wreck, have more faith in American arms and intentions than many of our own. Setanta and his historical brief is 100% on the mark.

Trying to impose a central government on Afghanistan I believe is futile. However, a locally driven effort to develop some central authority may work. The cost of supporting Karzi is modest, and if he is able to subordinate the warlords to the central government and bring a semblance of peace, then it is worth it.

I've come to believe that Bin Ladin is alive, though his whereabouts could be almost any place in Southwest Asia, or Northwest Africa. I don't think he's gone further away before going to ground. I expect we will get him eventually. Even the most cautious will make a mistake, and then we will be on him. In the meantime, Bin Ladin must devote much of his energy and resources to remaining hidden. The Al Queda network and CCC systems are disrupted and put under stress. Once flushed from Afghanistan, Al Queda has become even more diffuse than it was before. Cells can be very difficult to identify and penetrate, but on the other hand they have difficulty in coordinating efforts with other cells.

All in all, I believe that it is more difficult today to mount a major attack on the United States than it was prior to 911. We are still vulnerable, and should expect a major terrorist action in the next 90 days. Actually, I'm a little surprised that nothing has popped in the 90 days or so since the last Bin Ladin tape. Perhaps that evil CIA has foiled or made it too difficult for the terrorists to strike? Perhaps the pressure the administration has brought to bear is working?

Asherman



Is it possible that Al Qaeda and particularly Bin Laden"s capacity for terrorism at this time is not at the level we give it credit for.
I always have the nagging suspicion that our government keeps up the level of anxiety inorder to keep the American public distracted from the true State Of the Nation?

Do you mean, Au1929, that Mr. Bush keeps bin Laden alive for some electoral purposes of his own? I do not see such a thing likely to be truth.

steissd
I said nothing about Bin Laden being alive or dead. I said that it is possible that Bin Laden no longer has the capacity being attributed to him. I also stated that it was in Bush's interest to maintain the level of anxiety to distract the American people from domestic problems. Do I think Bush is capable of such a deception? NO doubt.

Anyone is capable to deceive if he or she has appropriate opportunities. But this does not mean that he/she actually deceives. The internal situation in the USA is much more favorable than in majority of countries in the world (except, maybe Switzerland), therefore there is no need for Mr. Bush to deceive anyone to gain popularity.

By Scott Baldauf | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN – In its second year of power, and its first real year of outright control, the government of Afghanistan has entered a crucial year that decides whether everything comes together - or falls apart.

http://csmonitor.com/2003/0128/p06s01-wome.html

Iwonder if au1929 is 100% sincere when he says:
" I also stated that it was in Bush's interest to maintain the level of anxiety to distract the American people from domestic problems. Do I think Bush is capable of such a deception? NO doubt."?
Wow!. I know that we have domestic problems, but to what extent are they the responsibility of the central (federal) government ? And what have we done in our own neighborhoods to solve our problems ?

Am I sincere. I would not put anything past Bush when it comes to gaining a political advantage.

it is quite possible that as long as our attention, our anxiety is focused on Iraq, on terrorism, we may very well let other issues of domestic policy slide. We may very well heed less attention to losing our civil rights to a "christian agenda", our economic stability to favoring the wealthy. The smoke and mirrors of illusion can cloud an awareness political ojectives.

I happen to think Shrub did all right in his comments yesterday afternoon. He expressed the condolences of the nation, said we would not back away from the space program, tried to comfort people as best he knew how by quoting some scripture, and then wished everyone well.

No attempt to take political advantage as far as I could see. And he did seem genuinely broken up near the end.

I still don't want him as President and consider him one of the greatest threats to our safety. But I'm not going to criticize him when he doesn't deserve any criticism.

Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. on Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda

By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The Bush administration's efforts to build a case for war against Iraq using intelligence to link it to Al Qaeda and the development of prohibited weapons has created friction within United States intelligence agencies, government officials said.

Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html?th=&pagewanted=all&position=top

On the same topic, also from the NYT (link below is to IHT):

New York: Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix has challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means. [..]

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Bush also mentioned in his speech.

http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=85332&owner=(The%20New%20York%20Times)&date=20030203042523

Docent P, I've come to really appreciate your various posts, but this one has me a bit puzzled - whence the suggestion that the (Muslim-fundamentalist, originally Pakistan-sponsored) Taliban was/is Marxist? Don't they believe in another book? Qu'ran and Das Kapital are pretty hard to reconcile, you know, especially for those who, like the Taliban, want to take their holy book literally ... ;-)



It doesn't necessarily prove anything except the seeming unwillingness of the Americans to achieve more than what they have achieved now - which isn't much more (or less) than "to control the situation" in Kabul and suburbs, and ensuring by occasional bombing that the warlords they've left the rest of Afghanistan to aren't tempted to let Al-Qaeda come out and play.

Feburary 10, 2003 / Vol. 161 No. 5
Asia
What About the Other War?
As the U.S. prepares for an attack on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan looks far from finished 
BY TIM MCGIRK/SPIN BOLDAK
In Afghanistan, a nation of skirmishing warlords and guerrilla fighters who strike quickly and then vanish, it's difficult to tell when one conflict ends and another begins. Last week, the biggest U.S. battle in Afghanistan in 10 months provided the latest reminder that the U.S. is still far from achieving a lasting peace in the strife-torn country—and that the Islamic jihadis arrayed against American troops and the government of Hamid Karzai are preparing to rachet up their terrorist war.

The battle might never have happened if not for a gruesome stroke of luck. On Jan. 27, U.S. troops and their Afghan allies were conducting random checks outside the city of Spin Boldak, a smuggler's haven near the Pakistani border, when a motorcyclist and his passenger roared past a checkpoint. The Americans and Afghans gave chase down a potholed road stretching across a broad mesa dotted with camels. During the pursuit, the turbaned man on the back of the motorcycle reached under his shawl for a grenade but fumbled it, blowing off his own legs. His comrade, Abdul Ghani, surrendered and later confessed a crucial bit of intelligence: he belonged to a 60-strong rebel legion holed up in the Adhi Ghar mountains not far away.


http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501030210-418618,00.html?cnn=yes

But this was not the main objective of the U.S. military operation there. Americans wanted to deprive bin Laden of training/logistic bases in this country, and they have hit the objective. Now, if they conduct a proper policies regarding tribal leaders, and do not try to impose on them Karzai's authority, they may be sure that Afghanistan will be no more a refuge for Al Qaeda.

steissd
It may have started as a war to oust Al Qaeda from it's training bases however, it has advanced far beyond that level. We are now engaged in pacification, nation building and the effort to repair the infrastructure and economy after 20 years of war. Unless or until the warlords and their minions come aboard. Those goals will never be achieved. We are a long way from that.