re: "The graveyard of Empires"

Chuck at From my position... On the Way! ("These are my own poorly arranged thoughts. They usually come to me during periods of when I can’t sleep and when under great stress.") assessed goals in Afghanistan.

Money quote(s):

"Empires throughout history have fought in Afghanistan.

I think that is the key thing to understanding these people. Their cultural/genetic memory is
imprinted with the idea that everyone else in the world can come here and kick
their asses until they get bored and go home.

I think it's really their driving factor, and why they seem so unwilling (beyond cell phones) to pull themselves out of the 13th century. Granted, they realize (and use to tremendous effect) that the US will pay, and pay, and pay, for their ridiculous "projects" to make this a better place. They'll likely end up with the third world's best infrastructure by the time we leave--and given their insecurity, animosity towards each other, and general bat-shit insanity, they'll quickly devolve into internal warfare. Warlord vs. Warlord in a winner takes all
cataclysm.

The winner of course, will get to take over all this wonderful infrastructure--and will likely tear it out and sell it to the highest bidder."

Particularly if it hurts a rival tribe. Tribalism is a reality in Afghanistan; it's not too much of an overstatement that, outside of Kabul, there really aren't too many people who would self-identify as Afghans ahead of their tribal identity. Tribalism, and the inevitable zero-sum game perspective, of this sort goes hand in hand with the lack of a social contract necessary for modernity.

"I don't really think of this place as a graveyard of empires--not the kind of place where empires come and are destroyed. It's more like the kind of place that empires come, see what it's like, realize that the only real solution outside of outright genocide is to dump prozac in every source of water and wait twenty years, realize that probably wouldn't work either, and then try to figure out the best way to just leave.

Unfortunately, we aren't there yet. I think we're getting closer to the "What's the point?" point, though. Staying here won't stop the spread of terrorism. Staying here won't make Afghanistan a stable democratic republic. Staying here won't remove the corruption, crime, or poverty. Staying here has no benefit to the US that I can see, long-term. The question that keeps popping into my head is "What's in it for us?" And I just can't seem to find an answer."

Goals and objectives. They are necessary for the development of any sort of strategy, at least if you intend for success to be anything but pure accident. And that's pretty much where we are after a decade; if we're "successful" in Afghanistan at anything (or possibly including) more than a retreat-under-fire from there when we finally pull out, it'll be a complete accident rather than the success of any one strategy, doctrine, policy, or negotiation.

"The second question of "is it worth it?" is even harder to answer. How do we quanitfy that? Is it worth it in terms of cost to the taxpayer? That goes back to "What's the point" and "How does this benefit the US?" What, exactly, are our strategic goals here? If being here is rooting out terrorists, we're playing whack-a-mole."

Nothing wrong with whack-a-mole, up to a point. But it's not a strategy for anything but marking time.

12/14

re: "Hussein strikes out"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") rakes Pres. Obama over the coals.

Money quote(s) of a non-ad hominem nature:

"just how much clout the NY Times and MSNBC have in the Arab world"

Just about none. Don't believe me? Check overall literacy rates in the Arab world (litaracy in any languages, even their own), look into how often (for instance) Al Jazeera cites MSNBC, and do the math.

"because the vast majority of the Muslims.... live in tribal and honor cultures and they only respect the strong horse"

Nice placement of a UBL "strong horse" reference there.

"the hated cowboy W because say what you want about him, he would kick your ass if you crossed him"

I believe it was the Kennedy administration which followed the adage "Don't get mad, get even." Words to govern by.

re: "Obama Condemns Violence in Libya; Somehow Manages to Not Mention Moamar Qadhafi"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ has some observations.

Money quote(s):

"Although I should be fair: I don't think I want tangible American action here. Arabs have enormous chips on their shoulders about the West and like slightly-demented loser little brothers they sort of need to make their own way, even it it's a bit pathetic. American involvement gives them what they most need -- a scapegoat, someone to blame their failures on."

Passing over how generally bad an idea it is to make sweeping generalizations about entire regions, cultures, or ethnicities; I think he's got a point.

"On CNN... A guy is saying that Libya, the state, may not survive Qadhafi's ouster; the state may split into tribe-controlled regions.

Does anyone care about this? Is there a single good reason to champion these arbitrary lines and larger-than-needed-or-wanted states which unite tribes that don't want to be under a single authority?

Do we have some sentimentalism about our old maps? Do we fear having to draw new ones?
This expert wasn't necessarily against Libya splitting into smaller states, but his general tone was one of alarm.

I don't get that. Why do we care if Libya splits into seven more homogeneous tribal regions?"

You'd think it'd be no skin off the United States' nose, but consider the following.

Making a single heterogeneous Third World state into seven homogeneous Third World states means that a single pool of resources (human, mineral, &tc.) able to support a nation state become divided, unevenly (because that's how God distributed them), between seven smaller Third World states. All of them aren't going to get the petroleum reserves.

Another thought; seven smaller tribal states mean seven new states liable to fall prey to any number of the ills small tribal states are liable. Islamicism (which would certainly capture at least one) would be bad enough; Al-Qaeda is worse and becomes an immediate problem for the West.

Lastly, what about Libya's stocks of non-nuclear WMD, chemical munitions, and not-yet-weaponized uranium?