| |
| How do we counter the Taliban feudalists? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| kojax |
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: How do we counter the Taliban feudalists? |
 |
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
I've been watching this documentary, called "Inside the Green Beret" about a Green Beret Unit in Afghanistan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9sOgjpmd4c
If you start at 13:30 in this documentary, it documents a whole bunch of tribal elders showing up in the Green Berets' camp, and expressing in a combined letter exactly what their concerns are about joining the US backed government. It's a pretty good clip, especially since it's not actors. It was filmed as it happened.
As near as I can tell, their problem is that the Taliban can, and will, hurt them, but the USA can't protect them. Their situation seems to function exactly like a classic feudal system. The feudal lord (or warlord) oppresses the peasants in nearby villages from a stronghold, taking whatever he wants from them, and killing or torturing them if they don't comply. I wonder if Islam is merely performing the same function as Christianity used to perform in old European feudalism: just adding credibility to a bunch of thugs who would be doing what they're doing regardless of any religion.
If so, then the real motivation is just the power rush: having people at their mercy, and being able to force them to do whatever they want them to. Same thing that motivates a rapist or a pedophile. We shouldn't ennoble them so much by calling them idealists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| blacknamed |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: How do we counter the Taliban feudalists? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Quote: |
| We shouldn't ennoble them so much by calling them idealists. |
You're making an assumption that they have no belief in their ideals. I think that's a bad way to analyze the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: How do we counter the Taliban feudalists? |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| blacknamed wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We shouldn't ennoble them so much by calling them idealists. |
You're making an assumption that they have no belief in their ideals. I think that's a bad way to analyze the situation. |
Having a belief and being entirely motivated, exclusively, by that belief and that belief alone, are two different things.
I'm suggesting that, at the very least, a desire for power is part of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| blacknamed |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: How do we counter the Taliban feudalists? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 42
|
| kojax wrote: |
| blacknamed wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We shouldn't ennoble them so much by calling them idealists. |
You're making an assumption that they have no belief in their ideals. I think that's a bad way to analyze the situation. |
Having a belief and being entirely motivated, exclusively, by that belief and that belief alone, are two different things.
I'm suggesting that, at the very least, a desire for power is part of it. |
Base on what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: Re: How do we counter the Taliban feudalists? |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| blacknamed wrote: |
| kojax wrote: |
| blacknamed wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We shouldn't ennoble them so much by calling them idealists. |
You're making an assumption that they have no belief in their ideals. I think that's a bad way to analyze the situation. |
Having a belief and being entirely motivated, exclusively, by that belief and that belief alone, are two different things.
I'm suggesting that, at the very least, a desire for power is part of it. |
Base on what? |
Perhaps I'm looking at this inductively instead of deductively. In the first place, the described behavior is exactly identical to the behavior of the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war. Taliban forces go into villages, and take resources from them, but don't give anything back. The Green Beret in the documentary I linked to describe how people are often killed merely for accepting medical aid from Green Beret doctors.
It follows all the same patterns, for the most part. Whereas the Viet Cong would take the family of a defiant village elder, and rape and kill his wife/daughters in front of him, the Taliban at least don't rape them before killing them. But.... other than that.... their acts of brutality are contingent on all the same behaviors. Accept help from the USA, we kill you. Get seen talking with soldiers, we kill you. Don't send your young men to join us when we ask, we kill you. I recently saw on the news, on Saturday, a story about some children that were given a bomb to deliver to US soldiers, and the bomb when off early and maimed several of them.
My point is: the vietcong were not religious. They were still idealists, of course, but it had nothing to do with 70 virgins. Why was their behavior almost exactly identical, then? Would you say that the Viet Cong's motives were truly selfless? When does idealism become rationalization? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
You have to remember that the Taliban is a grassroots thing. They became dominant when the people needed help asserting pressure and leverage against their corrupt government. The Taliban was essentially a group who banded together people who were angry and shared similar sentiment about being strong-armed by their cronies in power at the government level, and through force and numbers they made significant changes which benefited the population.
They've since evolved into something much more, but it's important to remember their roots. This is about more than the Taliban scaring everyone into submission (which certainly happens far too often), and a lot about people needing a voice and feeling that joining/supporting the Taliban is the only way to be heard and make change.
Our role is difficult. We need to give the Afghan people confidence that they will be safe and have security if they go against the wishes of the Taliban, but we also need to support giving them representation in government which actually watches out for them and makes progress for the collective benefit (not just cronies).
My larger point, though, is just that this is about much more than a simple desire for power or religious fanaticism.
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 1740
Location: Montreal
|
| You should also consider that the reason they may be using similar tactics to those of the Viet Cong is that those tactics work. After all, no matter what their motivation I think we can agree that their goal is to win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| inow wrote: |
You have to remember that the Taliban is a grassroots thing. They became dominant when the people needed help asserting pressure and leverage against their corrupt government. The Taliban was essentially a group who banded together people who were angry and shared similar sentiment about being strong-armed by their cronies in power at the government level, and through force and numbers they made significant changes which benefited the population.
They've since evolved into something much more, but it's important to remember their roots. This is about more than the Taliban scaring everyone into submission (which certainly happens far too often), and a lot about people needing a voice and feeling that joining/supporting the Taliban is the only way to be heard and make change. |
Every social organization is capable of change. Unfortunately, that is not a single edged sword.
| Quote: |
Our role is difficult. We need to give the Afghan people confidence that they will be safe and have security if they go against the wishes of the Taliban, but we also need to support giving them representation in government which actually watches out for them and makes progress for the collective benefit (not just cronies). |
It's kind of sad to think that the only thing they need protection against is their own Taliban. Otherwise, they would be perfectly safe. Except the part about a corrupt government, which could happen. (And I might suggest that they already had a corrupt government when we invaded, as evidenced by its behavior today.)
| Quote: |
My larger point, though, is just that this is about much more than a simple desire for power or religious fanaticism. |
My philosophy about it all is a bible story: Supposedly 2 women came before King Solomon, both claiming to be the mother of a child. There was no way to determine which one was the real mother, so he ordered a soldier to cut the child in half. One of the women conceded immediately rather than see the child come to harm. Solomon decided she must be the real mother.
So, I have to ask: between the USA and the Taliban, which one is more likely to concede if the civilian death toll gets too high? The thing is... I don't know the answer. The USA only cares how many of our own soldiers die. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
| kojax wrote: |
| iNow wrote: |
Our role is difficult. We need to give the Afghan people confidence that they will be safe and have security if they go against the wishes of the Taliban, but we also need to support giving them representation in government which actually watches out for them and makes progress for the collective benefit (not just cronies). |
It's kind of sad to think that the only thing they need protection against is their own Taliban. Otherwise, they would be perfectly safe. Except the part about a corrupt government, which could happen. |
But, my central point was that the Taliban exists... it has the power it does... expressly because the government was corrupt and the people had no other recourse but to band together and join such a militia-style group to protect themselves, their property, and their rights. That is why people are torn. While some Taliban leaders are thugs who use fear to control the people, the heart of the organization at its "founding" was to support and help the people. It's going to be a difficult balance for us to find since there are such mixed feelings about the organization among the people (and, in fact, since it's composed OF the people).
| kojax wrote: |
| So, I have to ask: between the USA and the Taliban, which one is more likely to concede if the civilian death toll gets too high? The thing is... I don't know the answer. The USA only cares how many of our own soldiers die. |
That's not entirely true. This hasn't been a standard military engagement. We are not deciding who "wins" based on body count. This is a counter insurgency, and to "win" with that we need to get the people on our side.
Case in point: When we were using the predator drones to drop bombs on targets, we frequently saw civilian casualties (due mostly to the lack of target definition). There were so many casualties and deaths among the Afghan citizens that anti-American sentiment was running very high. Not only have our drone strikes been significantly reduced to prevent these deaths, but General McChrystal has put an order forth that... even if it means letting Taliban get away... or even if it puts our soldiers at risk... Afghan civilians are to be protected at nearly all costs.
In short, the US DOES care about more than just how many of our own soldiers are killed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSISL514522
| Quote: |
The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has issued new combat orders designed to reduce civilian casualties, especially from air strikes, underscoring new counter-insurgency tactics.
<...>
General Stanley McChrystal, who took charge of all foreign troops in Afghanistan last month, said international forces needed to make a "cultural shift" away from conventional warfare and focus on winning the support of Afghans.
An unclassified version of the new "tactical directive" was released on Monday, less than a month after a U.S. military report found strikes by U.S. B1 bombers in May that killed dozens of civilians violated orders already in place at the time.
That report recommended drawing up new guidelines and ordering all U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan to undergo new training.
"We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories -- but suffering strategic defeats -- by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people," McChrystal said in the unclassified version. |
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| inow wrote: |
| kojax wrote: |
| iNow wrote: |
Our role is difficult. We need to give the Afghan people confidence that they will be safe and have security if they go against the wishes of the Taliban, but we also need to support giving them representation in government which actually watches out for them and makes progress for the collective benefit (not just cronies). |
It's kind of sad to think that the only thing they need protection against is their own Taliban. Otherwise, they would be perfectly safe. Except the part about a corrupt government, which could happen. |
But, my central point was that the Taliban exists... it has the power it does... expressly because the government was corrupt and the people had no other recourse but to band together and join such a militia-style group to protect themselves, their property, and their rights. That is why people are torn. While some Taliban leaders are thugs who use fear to control the people, the heart of the organization at its "founding" was to support and help the people. It's going to be a difficult balance for us to find since there are such mixed feelings about the organization among the people (and, in fact, since it's composed OF the people).
|
The Taliban may have started as a noble organization, but with no checks and balances, there's nothing to stop them from becoming exactly as corrupt as the organization they were formed to destroy. This is a constant theme in Africa. Rebels overthrow a dictator, install a new one, and he ends up being just as bad as the last guy. It's like this never ending cycle. The Taliban's genius is that they've tied themselves to a religion, which makes them artificially seem benevolent, even if they never follow the religion. It's a blank hall pass on corruption. (Reminiscent of feudal Europe, with it's many "christian" nobles.)
It's the problem with "anything but that" reasoning. I've also heard it called "counter stance". It's defining yourself based on what you're not instead of based on what you are. Inevitably, you become more and more like the demon you're dedicated to destroying, because everything you do is measured against a "greater evil", with you as the lesser of the two evils. Before you know it, you've surpassed them in every meaningful way, except that your name is different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| iceaura |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 432
|
| Quote: |
It's kind of sad to think that the only thing they need protection against is their own Taliban. Otherwise, they would be perfectly safe. |
Hardly.
They also need protection against the foreign-installed and foreign-allied government, the foreign-backed warlords, and the other evils that attracted so many idealistic Afghanis to the Taliban in the first place.
Because another similarity with Vietnam - besides the horror stories about the US enemies and the lack of description of the US allies - is the mystery of the relative ineffectiveness of the US allied forces. The very same Afghanis who are inevitably going to bulldoze all opposition and take over the country the minute the US leaves, cannot seem to fight a lick when they are on our side. On one side, Afghani fighters in sandals carrying light infantry arms and scrounged gear, trained in makeshift fashion and living in caves, short of food and ammo and everything else, outnumbered three to one. On the other side, Afghani fighters with access to air support, satellite intelligence, good food and medical care, artillery and maps, seven years of the best training, superior numbers and complete knowledge of the region.
After those years, the po-boy side is winning, and is universally recognized as the dominant native military force in the country - the sure victor, should the US go home.
How does that happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
| kojax wrote: |
The Taliban may have started as a noble organization, but with no checks and balances, there's nothing to stop them from becoming exactly as corrupt as the organization they were formed to destroy. This is a constant theme in Africa. Rebels overthrow a dictator, install a new one, and he ends up being just as bad as the last guy. It's like this never ending cycle. The Taliban's genius is that they've tied themselves to a religion, which makes them artificially seem benevolent, even if they never follow the religion. It's a blank hall pass on corruption. (Reminiscent of feudal Europe, with it's many "christian" nobles.)
It's the problem with "anything but that" reasoning. I've also heard it called "counter stance". It's defining yourself based on what you're not instead of based on what you are. Inevitably, you become more and more like the demon you're dedicated to destroying, because everything you do is measured against a "greater evil", with you as the lesser of the two evils. Before you know it, you've surpassed them in every meaningful way, except that your name is different. |
Very well said. There is a lot of alignment in our respective positions regarding this issue, and all I can do is to nod in agreement with your post.
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
| iceaura wrote: |
They also need protection against the foreign-installed and foreign-allied government, the foreign-backed warlords, and the other evils that attracted so many idealistic Afghanis to the Taliban in the first place.
<...>
After those years, the po-boy side is winning, and is universally recognized as the dominant native military force in the country - the sure victor, should the US go home. |
Which is why I think we are adjusting our strategy toward one of training their military and police forces so they can have a chance of providing for their own security. If we can train their military... and train their police... then they can maintain security once we're gone. Unfortunately, doing so takes a lot of time and money, and also a large troop footprint to protect the trainers and trainees from being attacked while coming up to speed.
So, we need lots more troops to maintain security in the present so we can train and prepare the Afghan military and police force to maintain security in the future.
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| iceaura |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 432
|
| inow wrote: |
| Which is why I think we are adjusting our strategy toward one of training their military and police forces so they can have a chance of providing for their own security. If we can train their military... and train their police... then they can maintain security once we're gone. Unfortunately, doing so takes a lot of time and money, and also a large troop footprint to protect the trainers and trainees from being attacked while coming up to speed. |
Your government has been feeding you that line for eight years now. At some point, a reasonable person would realize that results were overdue.
The enemy Afghanis were up to speed and kicking our allies's ass from day one.
And in many cases - as in Vietnam - they are exactly the same Afghanis, only they fight hard and win for the other side.
Without training, and without air support, and without logistical support, and without medical care, and without satellite intelligence, and without the best equipped and best funded military in the world backing them.
So what do you think is actually happening? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Page 1 of 4 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
