
Is Afghanistan really impossible to conquer? - arunitc
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26483320
======
belorn
How can one achieve victory without a clear definition on who the enemy is,
what goals the war has, and how to achieve those goals.

    
    
      The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the
      formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy
      cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."
      -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", Datalinks
    

I have never seen the US even try define how victory over al-Qaeda would look
like. Is it to kill the leadership and 10 sequential new leaders? One could
argue that victory is at what ever point there is no more leaders, but how do
you define that then? No announcement in 10 days from last killed?

Afghanistan is not impossible to conquer, you just have to define what conquer
means. For some, it means sacking every town and metaphoric sail away with all
the gold. Others want to build cities and extract taxes from people who lives
there. If you define victory, victory is possible.

~~~
chaostheory
> I have never seen the US even try define how victory over al-Qaeda would
> look like.

"In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war
is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant
to be won. It is meant to be continuous."

------
rdl
No. If you sold Afghanistan to people in colonial style, it would be perfectly
within the power of a middling nation or corporation (or hedge fund) to deal
with it. The problem is having unreasonable expectations ; if you just care
about killing terrorists and some mining, you don't need to deal with most of
it.

(The article says this, too -- the issue is that the country is too poor to be
worth the effort to conquer.)

~~~
ChuckMcM
I suspect you are correct, although it is unfortunate. Perhaps a better
question to ask would be, is there a place in the world for people who just
want to live a simple life? Since really what the 'conquering' is all about is
keeping residents in Afghanistan (not necessarily indigenous Afghans though)
from impacting the rest of the world in what are perceived to be negative
ways.

And it is pretty clear from recent events that this is something of a pipe
dream anyway.

~~~
belorn
> residents in Afghanistan from impacting the rest of the world

Isn't that what an defensive army and border police are for? If an residents
in Afghanistan want to harm me, they have to first get over to my country.

~~~
rdl
If you let them build up without any restrictions, as AQ did under the Taliban
and in Sudan, you end up with quantity and scale of attacks which border
defense can't mitigate sufficiently.

~~~
belorn
I am off the impression that the quantity and scale of attacks which was seen
in 9/11 is currently being restricted by a locked door in airplanes, and less
passive passengers.

~~~
MarkTee
Terrorists have weapons other than planes, you know.

------
grendelt
No, but the tactics required would probably violate international laws and be
labeled war crimes.

~~~
911_Inside_Job
Spoken like a true Armchair General.

~~~
tjmc
Actually Genghis Khan used those exact tactics to conquer Afghanistan in the
13th century.

~~~
911_Inside_Job
Spoken like a true XBox Hero.

Seriously. Westerners play XBox and that's their portal to militarism.

Oh. And they can pass quotes from their secondary education on militarism as
knowledge of it.

In actuality, we're all just house pets who've never been in the jungle. Our
owners are the ones who know about war and slaughter.

And the Armchair General types, don't get me started. They look at the world
like a Risk Board that doesn't have enough of their colored pieces on it until
we've got everything. And talk about how others are too squeamish or
domesticated to do things properly. But they are far removed from war, and
post on HN.

~~~
Dewie
People have to be Armchair X to a certain degree, in countries that you are
alluding to - it's a prerequisite to a democracy.

------
ryanobjc
When the US invaded Afghanistan, I (and some of my friends) smartassedly noted
that where the British and Russians failed, so would the US.

Ultimately the US has failed to tame Afghanistan - as expected - but really
the world isn't better for my smartass comments.

The real opportunity was to do something radically better, and really think
outside the box.

I really do miss the US military of the 1940s and 50s, I feel they would have
the gumption to put someone smart and weird on that project and really solve
it.

~~~
ryanobjc
To follow up, I think the project could be defined as 'the civilizing of
Afghanistan". Reduce the chance of it nurturing terrorism, helping calm
relations between neighbors, reducing the rates of violence.

Of course, in the UN framework this is not really up to someone else.
Sovereignty and all of that.

~~~
rdl
I'd be pretty comfortable with a Chinese in Africa style program to build
infrastructure and business while working with existing warlords and dictators
on the ground. You might want some national level control (Taliban) to keep
the civil war under control, but it would be a loose federation.

The us really would never want to be seen working with even people like
Dostrum, let alone the Taliban. I had a semi ironic Massoud sticker on my gun
safe for a while , but even he was a pretty bad guy compared to non afghans.

------
spikels
Why would you want to conquer it?

~~~
ethana
For democracy.

~~~
spikels
Ha! This beating is for your own good. Later you will thank me.

~~~
thaumasiotes
This is a real problem in US government. Democracy is a moral issue of the
times, not a practical one. Unfortunately, that means essentially all public
policies relating to it are idiotic. :/

------
hammadfauz
Stupid me, I thought they were going in to liberate. All this time they were
a-conquerin'

------
sirkneeland
Impossible to conquer on any reasonable budget. I'm sure with enough money and
troops to truly blanket the country you could.

------
alexeisadeski3
One wonders how democracy and modernization became part of the Afghan project.
Had the US stuck to its goal of vanquishing Al Qaeda whilst merely deposing
the Taliban, things would be different.

The world is a big place, and we rich westerners are not omniscient. Why
Afghanistan needs democracy I will never understand, and why the US must bring
it there puzzles me further.

Let it be a Pashtun Sharia state. So long as the bastards running it do not
provide a safe haven to those plotting harm to the US and friends, all is
well. It's a simple rule for leaders of any ideology to follow - and most
importantly the drone fleets provide strong incentive for them to comply.

George Bush forgot that the only reason for the NATO invasion in the first
place was that the Taliban refused to turn Bin Laden & Co over to him.

~~~
jmnicolas
> Why Afghanistan needs democracy I will never understand, and why the US must
> bring it there puzzles me further.

Because democracy is the Trojan horse of the American imperialism.

I understand Americans don't like to see it that way, they'd rather think of
themselves as good people and they are. But their elites are bloodthirsty
bastards bent on conquering the world.

Look at the cold hard facts about American military "presence" in the world
and tell me it doesn't look like an empire occupying its conquests ...

~~~
alexeisadeski3
South Korea, Japan, France, Germany - all occupied by American Imperialism and
slaving away under its exploitative boot heel to this day!

Truly there has been no crueler empire in history.

~~~
jmnicolas
No, cruelty is reserved for unwilling countries (Irak, Afghanistan ...).

The good, obedient states are rewarded and shown as examples as you do in your
comment (I'm French btw).

edit : maybe it's not apparent in my comments, but I have nothing against
Americans (or any other people for that matter). I criticize the elites, not
the "normal" people.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
And what was South Korea "willing" to do?

------
vfclists
More idiotic HN commentards as usual. Instead of calling out the idiotic
criminal enterprise know as the Afghanistan occupation for what is, they are
finding more ways of rationalizing it.

Why don't they spend time debating the persecution of US, British and other
Western European leaders for war crimes?

I don't suppose it occurred to them that there were no Afghans or Iraqis
involved in the 9/11 'attacks'.

------
chatman
Wonderfully irrelevant article to people here. Politics is entering
everywhere!

