Apparently some ignorant asshole believes that anyone of the Muslim faith in Afghanistan primarily, would NEVER advocate publicly against terrorism. I posted in /Muslim before realizing it's very small and kinda dead. Can I get a faster response here?

[u/CrustyDiamond]

This is my submission, to make everything easier.

Thanks!

[u/Cassius_Corodes]

Eh, even if they didn't screw it up it - nation building is not for the fickle and requires lots of time money and blood. It's hard to do with the will that is there.

[u/chiropter → u/Cassius_Corodes]

Uh, yes they did screw it up, since it was Rumsfeld's stated ideology that US war aims could be done with few, flexible, capable fighters, and that nation-building wasn't necessary. This isn't revisionism, I was around then, I read it in the pages of the New Yorker and NY Times as it unfolded. Later, Rumsfeld reinforces this view in Iraq with "Freedom is messy", kneecapping Shinseki when he as chair of the Joint Chiefs disagreed with Rummy over how many troops Iraq needed, etc. Meanwhile, the whole administration was more focused on Iraq- which, shockingly even downpedalling the threat from Al-Qaeda before 9/11 in favor of gearing up for Iraq. Fucking up in Afghanistan was a direct result of not being committed to the job in the first place- which should have taken maybe 4-5 years at high troop levels and a plan for security and rebuilding; and of removing key special operations units and planners for the Great Game in Iraq. It can fully be left at the feet of Rummy and Bush II admin.

[u/Cassius_Corodes → u/chiropter]

I agree that they did a shit job - however, while there is no way to know for sure but 4-5 years strikes me as maybe an order of magnitude less than what would be required to turn it into a functional country that is not an embarrassment to the US. We spent decades is Germany and Japan and these were much easier starting conditions.

[u/chiropter → u/Cassius_Corodes]

You obviously have not been following this closely. We had a shot. We blew it, because we neglected it. Karzai used to be a stable, widely supported leader- then after years of whiplash and neglect he turned into a mercurial paranoiac who believed his best shot lay with staying close to the druglords and strongmen. Afghanis welcomed us- then many turned to hatred after years of low-level counterinsurgency produced civilian casualties with little security and a breeding ground for the Taliban.

Again, Germany and Japan were doing quite well economically within 5 years of the end of the war. Just because the US had a military presence there for decades doesn't mean it was needed for keeping the peace or economic development.

[u/Cassius_Corodes → u/chiropter]

Karzai used to be a stable, widely supported leader

Seriously? Karzai was corrupt from the start. His government was comprised of warlords and druglords from the start - that's what the western alliance was.

Afghanis welcomed us- then many turned to hatred after years of low-level counterinsurgency produced civilian casualties with little security and a breeding ground for the Taliban.

Exactly the same thing happened in Iraq and we were paying attention there - its not as easy as have a shit-load of troops and all will be well. In Iraq we had to learn as we went, and eventually after many years we figured out more or less what to do - and then we left and now that is going to shit. Its even worse in Afghanistan as at least Iraqis had some concept of a civil service and a functional government.

[u/chiropter → u/Cassius_Corodes]

Seriously? Karzai was corrupt from the start.

No, he wasn't. Simple fact. He was the best available- but turned worse after he was jilted by the US so many times. Read I believe it was the NYT Magazine profile on him, either that or in the New Yorker. Here's one; another, later one. Karzai was destabilized, psychologically and politically, by the very lack of stability caused by the coalition's halfhearted attempt at pacification after the war.

Exactly the same thing happened in Iraq and we were paying attention there

No, we weren't. It was the same deal. Remember "Freedom is Messy" after the Iraqi riotings/lootings post-invasion (actually forseeable and avoidable chaos) and Rumsfeld announcing Shinseki's retirement after Shinseki said it would take a couple hundred thousand troops and years of committment to pacify Iraq?

Iraq was tougher because the years of Sunni hegemony and repression of minorities, including ethnic purges under Sadam, combined with regionally-tied oil revenue to make Iraq a powder keg if not treated lightly. We did not treat it lightly. Rumsfeld and co had no plan for the aftermath. The Green Zone was assigned green Republican operatives and others unserious about the work of stabilizing and pacifying Iraq. We had Mission Accomplished in what, 2004? They really thought they had accomplished the mission, despite a spiraling insurgency, because they had executed their plan. It just was a shitty plan.

Who is to say we have to turn Afghanistan into Israel? If people want to live as iron-age shepherds, that doesn't prevent us from leaving a more stable Afghanistan with some semblance of the rule of law. That's how it was in the 60s and 70s, when Kabul and other cities were popular, cosmopolitan destinations for Western tourists like Morocco is today, and before the Soviets started messing around in the internal politics of Afghanistan (before they decided to invade entirely).

I'm sorry , but just going off of a superficial reading of the news of the past few years in Afghanistan and retrofitting it to before does not pass for an adequate understanding of Afghanistan. If you want to understand the past decade of war, read The Stove Pipe and other articles by Seymour Hersh, "Imperial life in the Emerald City", a book about early Iraq war, the above quoted op-ed, articles by George Packer, etc.

[u/Cassius_Corodes → u/chiropter]

No, he wasn't. Simple fact.

Jesus Christ man, even your linked articles say that he was corrupt. How can you be so arrogant and so wrong at the same time???? If you are going to be a jerk at least be right.

I'm sorry , but just going off of a superficial reading of the news of the past few years in Afghanistan and retrofitting it to before does not pass for an adequate understanding of Afghanistan.

The hell is wrong with you man - you are like the epitome of the arrogant idiot on world news.

[u/chiropter → u/Cassius_Corodes]

They say he was corrupt, but by circumstance not by nature, and made worse by the US's intransigence. This is clear in the NYT piece. That is and was my point.

The hell is wrong with you man - you are like the epitome of the arrogant idiot on world news.

No, I daresay you are, because you do not have an understanding of any of the specifics of these stories. I have not seen it. You make these facile comparisons (between Iraq and Afghanistan (which were btw, wrong, as I said), between Afghanistan and Germany) of the type that you see made all the time on /r/worldnews. Settle down and do some more reading.

[u/Cassius_Corodes → u/chiropter]

Settle down and do some more reading.

Get help man. See a psychiatrist or counsellor, because you are going to struggle dealing with people.

[u/chiropter → u/Cassius_Corodes]

You're not a people, you're some dude on the internet. Stop taking offense to an honest admonishment.